HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine)
Subject: Re: My Apologies (was Re: Mysogynist Bullshit)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 23:34:48 GMT

biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel) writes:

>levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:

>...[deletiae]...

>>For those who cannot get the Chicago Tribune. The rape story involves
>>several young men who sexually abused a young woman with a mental
>>age of about six, promising her they would take her on a "date" if she
>>submitted to them. The abuse was very graphically described.

>>After the abuse was done, the woman waited for hours for the young
>>men to come back and take her on the "date" they had promised. 

>>The mens' defense was that they were engaging in *consensual* sex. Ugh!

>This naturally brings up the question: in what sense can a mentally
>handicapped person give consent to sex?

>In this case (I have not read the story, and am only reacting to what
>Lenore wrote) it seems essentially impossible for the young woman to
>give consent. Does this mean that she, and others like her, can never
>have sex? Who will determine competence in such cases?

>Regards,
>       H. Biesel

I've been thinking about this issue myself. I don't know the
answer. I think in this particular case the young men were
clearly guilty of rape; and morally quite culpable.

This case bothers me a lot.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael)
Subject: Re: Violence
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 18:20:57 GMT

In <1992Dec15.134838.27623@cs.cornell.edu> jean@cs.cornell.edu (Jean M. Petrosino) writes:
>I was thinking about this net last night and all the arguments about violence 
>that have been flying around.  Many men have been arguing here that men are as
>much victims of violence as women.  Okay, I'll give you that one.  But I ask
>you, since women commit very little crime in general, who do you think is 
>committing the majoritiy of violent acts?  I think the men here have to stop
>directing their anger at feminists who call attention to violence issues, and
>re-direct their anger at the men who are committing these violent acts.

The saddest thing here is that as women become more equal and as cultural
lines become less clear, we may find in the future that the disparity
in numbers between which sex commits more violent acts also becomes
smaller.  The answer to violence is not just a sex issue.  Its a culture
issue I believe.  The time we spend patting ourselves on the back because
our sex commits fewer violent acts could probably be spent more
productively working on figuring out why we have so much violence in
the first place.

    Michael Stanley (michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu)

    Michael Stanley (michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women,soc.men
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Hooray!!
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 02:05:49 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.020342.15861@netcom.com> tyger@netcom.com (Kristen Kohlbecker) writes:
>wendy@sundown.mil.wi.us writes:
>>Duane Hentrich (baba@samadhi.Tymnet.COM) wrote:
>>Yes, my life experiences are different than a woman born. It is something 
>>I can never go back and experience. I grieve and cry over that alot.
>
>Oh good grief...
>
>Look, I've been reading your copy for a couple of weeks now, and you keep 
>mentioning crying, and being sad and grieving associated with your transition
>to a woman's body and the almost requisite ill treatment that goes with it. 
>Why in GOD'S name are you doing it if it's so awful? I know you said in another
>post that you have always felt like a woman in a man's body, but if being a 
>woman carries such a hassle with it, why not just be a champion of women's
>causes like, oh, Gordon Fitch (sp?), for instance?

IMO, this shows a severe lack of understanding as to what
transexualism is.  The transexual person feels that s/he doesn't have
the right body, that the body s/he was born into is of the wrong sex
and it was a mistake.  Of course, there's going to be a lot of sadness
and grief that the transexual wasn't born into the right body to begin
with.

For you to suggest that Wendy should just be a champion of women's
causes show ignores the fact that to Wendy, it's not _just_ women's
causes, but first and foremost being a woman that matters to her.
You're pushing causes when Wendy is concerned with identity.
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: Gender Differences - Sophie Germain
Date: 13 Dec 1992 21:21:29 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

<RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:

>-<RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
>-
>->in `white', i.e. Roman notation:
>->How much is CXVIII times XI  ?
>-
>->Or would you rather solve it in non-white notation?
>->How much is 118 times 11 ?
>-
>->The second problem is posed in the notation which is known in the
>->West as Arabic notation but the notation is actually Indian.  It is
>->known in the West as Arabic notation because it was the Arabs who
>->brought it to the West from India.
>-
>-Ahem!  Both Arabs and Indians are caucasian!
=======================================================================
>That is why I also pointed out that printing, paper currency and gun
>powder are all Chinese inventions.  Of course, gun powder might not
>be thought of as a `contribution', but then, if you use it primarily
>in fire crackers, that is not so bad, is it?

>                                                --  Michal

>Rohit Parikh
========================================================================
You need to be a bit more careful with your editing!  Rohit wrote this
and not I.

By the way, gunpower isn't so bad.  You can blow up lots of things with
it, not just people.  And, no doubt we would invent plenty of ways to
kill people without gunpowder. On the whole I would count it as a 
positive contribution!

-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Subject: Re: Separate but Equal?
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 16:21:42 GMT
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences

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.  (For example,
childcare would be provided by daycare centers rather than by Mom, who
would be a fulltime paid worker like everyone else.)  Then it would
make sense to say that the society is unfair to women because of their
sex, because the roles established by the society don't give most
women the opportunity to make use of their special capacities.
(Compare Plato's _Republic_, in which male and female Guardians had
the same role -- war, government and philosophy -- but the men were
usually better at it; contrast the matrilineal societies Loren Petrich
recently mentioned, in which women are more prominent than in most
societies because there is very little need for the activities
belonging to the public sphere.)

2.  Suppose most men and most women would be happiest in a society
that had appropriately-defined sex roles, but some would not.  Then a
society with no sex roles would be unfair to the majority with respect
to sex roles, because it would sacrifice the interests of the majority
in favor of that of a minority. 
-- 
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
"Rem tene; verba sequentur."  (Cato)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil)
Subject: Re: why poor women are obese
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 22:57:16 GMT

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.

Actually, from what I understand about vegetarianism, is that it isn't always
easy to have a well-balanced diet.  I had a number of vegetarian friends 
in the town I used to live in.  They had to eat larger portions in order to
get all the nutrients that they needed.  You don't necessarily lose weight on
a vegetarian diet.

>>                                            I don't think it's a coincidence 
>>that we as a society idolize thinness, particularly on the part of women.  
>>Historically, the less attainable (and mostly more expensive) body image is 
>>that time's ideal body type.  

>So what is it that you propose, a conspiracy?

Actually, yes.  Well, I'm not saying its a well-coordinated conspiracy, but
there is a commercial reason to keep women focused on the less attainable,
more expensive ideal body type.  Look at the thousands of dollars spent 
each year on diet drinks, diet pills, diet dinners, diet this and diet that.

>>                              For example, in many countries where starvation
>>runs rampant, the heavier a woman is, the more attractive she is considered to
>>be.  In America today, where food is generally plentiful, women (and men) are
>>expected to be thin.  Therefore, a heavy poor woman is viewed with the 
>>ultimate distaste as Robert Schaeffer illustrated.

>I am not sure I follow you. Most women are seeking what -they- consider
>an ideal weight, and surveys have shown that this is not what men would
>consider ideal. The survey I recall found that the men thought that women
>would ideally weigh more than the ideal weight given by the women. 

Hmmm, well, actually, men are more interested in what is considered an
ideal "body type" not so much "body weight."  That body type is nearly 
impossible to attain.  You are either born with long, willowy legs or you
aren't and there's no way you can make short, athletically built legs into
Barbie Doll legs no matter how much weight you lose.  (Although, I am sure
there are a number of guys who are interested in someting other than 
Barbie Dolls.)

>payner@netcom.com

Sharon 
oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu

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 04:27:54 GMT

farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>>  (It's pretty clear that my 
>>unnatural heterosexual impulse came about from these experiences...

>I wouldn't mind heterosexuals so much if you all just didn't flaunt it
>so.  I mean, what you do in the privacy of your own homes is your
>business, but why do the rest of us have to be exposed to your rampant
>heterosexuality?  If you all would just learn to be discreet... 

Cries of "You bet; We're Het; Get Used to it!" heard outside my window.

What *is* this world coming too?

rini
From: Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Candada Massacre
Date: 14 Dec 92 20:22:43 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>
>>Violence *is* a problem.  Violence against women is a *different*
>>problem, with different causes, and, probably, different solutions.

>Solving the problem of violence in general will also solve the problem
>of violence against women (tm) will it not?

It seems likely that "the problem of violence" has many causes, many
contributing factors; so it can only be solved in a piecemeal way.
Consider cancer as an analogy; if you manage to solve leukemia by
a combination of radiation therapy and a drug, that is still an
achievement.  However, saying that solving the problem of cancer
would solve leukemia doesn't really advance the situation.

>>Women are singled out as targets by many violent people, and this is a
>>problem disctinct from the problem of violence in general.

>Posted statistics have shown that men are more often the victims of
>violence, and that women hit men about as often as men hit women. What
>exactly is it you are referring too?

Historically (and in the present in many places), one of the
reasons for domestic violence (among many) was that "the man
of the household" felt that he owned his wife; he could do whatever
he wanted with her, and punish her whenever she didn't obey him.
Many people are still brought up with a trace of this attitude,
even when they intellectually acknowledge some kind of equality
of status.  When a man with such a background feels frustrated,
for whatever reason, he can feel a tendency to lash out at some
woman for not staying in her place.  Most men suppress such a
reaction; some do not.  In this instance, women are singled out
as targets.  Statistics about injuries tell very little about
the motivations underlying them, and it is the latter that must
be recognized if any solution is to be found.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk      Computing Lab, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Discord, the Goddess of the Net, was developing a taste for blood sacrifice.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: HGERBER@vm.ucs.UAlberta.CA (Hjalmar)
Subject: Keep Scratching
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 17:54:36 GMT

HGERBER@vm.ucs.UAlberta.CA (Hjalmar) writes:

>> I don't know what "feminists" think.  I try to understand what individuals
>> who claim that they are adherents of feminism, are saying...

> Wow -- are you saying that (adherents of feminism) != (feminists) ?

> rini
> -scratching head....

 The collective "men" does not exist in nature or in fact.  "Men" is a
 form of shorthand for "not-necessarilly-related individuals who happen
 to share a secondary characteristic of being male".  It exists only in
 the minds of people. "Men" does not have adherents - people who joined
 with the conscious purpose of being "men". What is the purpose of "men"?

 I believe that the collective "feminists" does NOT exist, except in the
 minds of people.  There are INDIVIDUALS who adhere to the (quite varied)
 belief systems that are collected under the banner "feminism", but such
 adherence is far from having a common, standard purpose of BEING "femi-
 nist".  What is the purpose of "feminists"?

 On the other hand, the NOW is definitely a group.  It exists - independent
 of whether someone imagines it or not.  It (supposedly) has a common
 purpose.  Most, if not all NOW members are adherents of feminism, but
 not all adherents of feminism are NOW members.  Subsets...etc.

 The fact that I subscribe to SOME, definitely NOT ALL, of the ideas that
 is claimed to be "feminist", does not make me an adherent of feminism. It
 makes me an individual who subscribes to some ideas.  Please quit trying
 to pin a lable on me.  Please quit trying tell me how I think or what I
 should think and do - simply because I have the secondary characteristic
 of "male".  Please quit telling me that I should feel guilty because of
 what some other individual who shares a secondary characteristic with me
 had done.  I am unique.  I am an individual.  I am responsibly for MY
 behaviour - regardless of my secondary characteristics.

 Adolf Hitler adhered (mostly) to a vegetarian diet.  Does this make
 others who, for whatever reason do not eat meat, co-conspirators in
 what transpired under Hitler's regime?

 Keep scratching, rini.:-)

Hjalmar
-------
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil)
Subject: Gender Tax
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 23:56:33 GMT

Ellen Goodman, a national syndicated columnist asks us to consider the 
monetary cost of being a woman today.

Today, when a woman looks for an apartment, very often, security is a serious
consideration.  Since most apartments in security buildings tend to cost
about $100 more per month than a non-security building, she suggests that this
could be considered a "gender tax."  Goodman also mentions the cost of 
extra car door locks, mace/peppergas, cab fare in lieu of walking a few blocks
at night, self-defense courses, etc.

Sharon 
oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu
From: baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: CALLING ALL WOMEN..WHERE ARE YOU?
Date: 11 Dec 92 22:30:28 GMT
Organization: BT North America, San Jose CA.

In article <1992Dec11.182123.26923@midway.uchicago.edu>, mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:
|> That's a good one Heiner.   Ha ha ha, very funny.  You're so very funny
|> when you look in the mirror, are you?  Funny funny funny. Ladies and 
|> Gentlemen: Heiner thinks he is very funny!  Isn't that cute? Yes, 
|> Heiner looks back at our destroyed relationship and my devastated
|> life, and he laughs.  He watches me suffer, and he laughs.  Ha ha ha ha
|> ha -- it's so *very* funny, isn't it?  Boy, he's got a *great* sense
|> of humor.  About as funny as Hitler.


I just know I'm gonna regret this, buuut......

It sure looked to me like this recent exchange between rini and Heiner was
all in fun with sarcastic and rather outrageously humorous quips from
both of them. If this is a joke could I please have, like, one smilie?

If not take it to email.

-- 
d'baba Duane M. Hentrich	baba@Tymnet.Com

We have yet to learn that the thing uttered in words is not therefore affirmed. It must affirm itself, or no forms of logic or of oath can give it evidence. 
The sentence must also contain its own apology for being spoken. - R.W.Emerson
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: a thought on men and
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 00:40:56 GMT

On the 'wet heat' method
Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:

>Still, I wouldn't use this method.  I imagine that it would be QUITE painful
>not to mention dangerous (Imagine if you were to stick some sensitive part
>of *your* body under extremely hot water for extended periods of time each 
>day,
>for a protracted period - wouldn't there be long-term structural damage 
>or even
>permanent scarring?).  Jennifer, can you answer this concern?  Thanks...
 
I'm pretty sure that the water isn't THAT hot.  It's definitely in the
range of hot tub temperatures.

rini
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: Re: Feminist Censorship in Canada
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 18:22:11 GMT
Distribution: alt
Organization: mydog in exile

dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg) writes:
| I was eatching CNN today and learned that the Beatles song Run For Your Life
| was banned from Canadian radio because of its misogynist (sp?  sorry
| I'm sick) message.  A Canadian feminist group proclaimed it a stunning
| victory.  This, Gordon, is why some of us are so afraid of the
| (so-called) feminist censors.  Yeah the religious right wants to get
| rid of rock and roll too, but how frequently do they get songs removed
| from the radio?

As I am apostrophized, I will briefly answer.  The question
is, what would Canadian authorities do absent feminism?  Answer:
they would censor, as they did before feminism, do now, and
probably will do as long as there is a Canada.  While Canada
is a liberal country compared to most of the nations of the
world, is not liberal by U.S. standards; Canada does not have
freedom of speech as we currently know it here in the U.S.

I have no objection to people criticizing feminist
censorship, along with any other form of censorship they
don't like, but I do object to people characterizing 
feminism as a movement in favor of censorship, which is
a false characterization, and to people taking simple-
minded approaches to limitations on freedom of 
expression, which has become banal.
-- 

 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: romingk@pell3l0.alleg.edu (Karl Rominger)
Subject: ABORTION IS MURDER
Organization: Allegheny College
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 05:10:26 GMT



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

Do you agree?  Disagree?


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: rudy@netcom.com (Rudy)
Subject: Re: I'm So Confused
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 21:37:40 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.175313.11572@netcom.com> 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

>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?
 
Oh come on!  Some women (and men) like to be flogged with leather whips.
Of course it has to be the right man(woman).  How's a poor guy to know
what reaction the woman will have before he tries it?

Is that the general idea?  You have to try something to see if it works?
Sure...  
>        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