HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: anthony@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Anthony J Stieber)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: Get a CLUE, a LARGE CLUE
Date: 15 Nov 1992 21:24:00 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4

In article <1992Nov12.092842.2703@mdcbbs.com> rivero@mdcbbs.com (Michael Rivero) writes:
>In article <1992Nov12.044519.25609@midway.uchicago.edu>, mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:
>|> I'm fairly sure that statements like "You black people sure do 
>|> know how to dance!" are considered racist in many places.
>  That depends on whether it is meant as a sincere compliement or not,
>don't you think?

It doesn't matter if the "compliment" (correct spelling) is sincere
or not.  If it is stated in a racist way, it's racist.

Is the above statment racist?  I think it is.  Why do they have to be
told they're black?  Given the circumstances, do they have to be told
they are good dancers?  Do they need some white guy telling them?

Dancing ability (or or any other ability) would not seem to be genetic.  
--
<-:(= Anthony Stieber	anthony@csd4.csd.uwm.edu   uwm!uwmcsd4!anthony
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: S. Faludi's __Backlash__
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 17:57:32 GMT

In article <1e0lekINN6s6@charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu> cworth@OAVAX.CSUCHICO.EDU writes:
)
) Hi,
)   Our campus is hosting a systemwide conference on the status of women next
) Spring.  Susan Faludi--the Pulitzer prize winning author of __Backlash__--
) will be the keynote speaker.  Consequently book discussion groups are form-
) ing all over our campus.  (I've joined one, but am only into Chapt 5 so far).
)
)   I am very curious to know what the opinions are about:
) 1) the quality of Faludi's scholarship (the general accuracy of the data/ 
)    studies she cites, correctness of the conclusions she draws from them 
)    and so forth.)
) and,
) 2) the general regard/opinions/ views for the thesis of this book.
)
)   If this was widely discussed a year ago, or a FAQ is available, I apol-
) ogize for reintroducing it.
)                                       Many thanks,  Chuck
)
) Addendum: So far I've been impressed by what I've read.  I'm a practit-
) ioner/student of survey research and think she's done a marvelous job
) of marshalling a lot of different data sources in a compelling way.

You will probably find a lot of disagreement on this topic!

My own opinion is that the statistics in 'Backlash' are highly selective.
I haven't seen any outright errors (doesn't mean there aren't any)  but I've
seen a lot of stuff that is misleading at best.

Take the classic $.59 per dollar issue, for instance.  The specific
statistics she quotes are true.  However, she will not point out statistics
that do not tend to reinforce her position - to whit the fact that single
women earn $.93 per dollar when compared to single men (Farrel, quoting
statistics from the same Census Bureau that Faludi uses).

She will mention that the ratio has been fairly constant at $.59 for a long
time, but not mention the fact that researchers such ad Edward Lazear
feel that there was a substantial narrowing of the wage differential
between YOUNG men and YOUNG women in the period stuidied (1968-1974),
or that researchers such as Andrea Beller point out that the increasing
participation of women in the job market means a shift towards younger
female workers who are unable to command 'top dollar' - and that Beller
estimates that the male/female earnigngs ratio would have *dropped*
by 7% due to the changing demographics if it were not for other effects
(such as enforcement of the title VII laws).

["Time of Change, 1983 Handbook on Women Workers", U.S. Dept of Labor
"Women in the Labor Market", Lloyd, Andrews, Gilroy (eds). (quoted by above)]

Nor will she point out the difference in the hours worked by so called
'full time' men and women workers.

If you look closely at Faludi, you will probably notice that she quotes a
lot of statistics (seletively, as I mentioned above) but that she implies a
lot more than she actually directly *says*.

Newsgroups: soc.women
From: nadel@attatash.aero.org (Miriam Nadel)
Subject: Re: Sexist?  Dangerous?
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 20:01:30 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.011917.19613@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>I've said this in another post, and I'll say it here.  I don't see
>women complimenting strange women on their clothes, their bodies, and
>their sexual appeal.  

My experience is different.  I've never seen women complimenting strange
women on their bodies or their sexual appeal, but this happens frequently
with clothes.  Also with hairstyles, though less frequently.  I've had
complete strangers come up to me and tell me what a flattering color I
was wearing.  And I have one pair of shoes that I can't wear without
at least one or two female strangers telling me "cool shoes."  Usually
I just say "thanks" and that's it; sometimes they ask me where I got them.

It seems to me that men less often compliment strange women in a way that
sounds as innocuous.  It's a question of tone.  

Miriam Nadel
From: twain@milton.u.washington.edu (Barbara Hlavin)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Sexist?  Dangerous?
Date: 16 Nov 92 17:43:35 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Nov16.174335.9044
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

ljf says 

>|> The problem here is that women don't know when the "pretty lady"
>|> compliment will turn into "you stuck-up bitch" harassment when the
>|> woman doesn't respond favorably to the compliments.  And yeah, it
>|> happens a lot more often than most hetero men seem to think it does.

michael rivero says 

>  It happens a lot less often than feminist politicos would claim it does.



You obviously don't have a clue about how often it really happens. 

Why do you find it your appointed task in life to deny women's 
experiences.  You do it all the time.  


--Barbara 
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: mkagalen@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (michael kagalenko)
Subject: Re: Entry level salaries (was: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Organization: Northeastern University, Boston, MA. 02115, USA
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 03:10:56 GMT

>
>In summary, then : 1. Women are scarce in Mathematics because of their own
>                      personal failings, and nothing else. (If the previous
>                      poster had even the slightest sense of shame, she would
>                      have noted that affirmative action has favored women in
>                      Mathematics and Chemistry both for decades, so the
>                      complaint that women are getting more than their share of
>                      breaks is >well< substantiated). To clean the slate every
>                      time women fall behind in some area is simply not justice
>                      - it deprives those who have worked harder of the fruit
>                      of their labor.
>
>                   2. Discrimination is discrimination, and I, for one, am sick
>                      and tired of hearing excuses for the inexcusable.
>                      Feminism, at least, is being partially exposed for what
>                      it really is : a totally hypocritical self-interest
>                      movement aimed at grabbing everything it can for women,
>                      with no concern whatsoever for whether or not any men are
>                      being wronged in the process, masquerading as a push for
>                      equal rights.
>
>Don't be fooled. And don't be steamrollered. Women AREN'T entitled to special
>privileges. Don't let them have them.
>
>                                                 Joseph B. Dunphy
>                                                 Politically incorrect without
>                                                    apology
>
>
>PS. I can already see a net battle brewing here, with every feminist on the net
>    writing in to argue with the proposition that discriminating against white
>    males on the basis of gender and ethnicity is wrong. I have already spoken
>    my peace, and will ignore those responses, much as I would ignore any other
>    self-serving hypocrite writing in on her own behalf. I have better things
>    to do with my time. Discrimination is wrong. Anyone who disagrees with that
>    is either intellectually or morally deficient. End of subject.
>
>    Responses are unwelcome, and will bounce.
 Joseph's posting is very reasonable. I'd like to add that affirmative
actions is the best way to rot off motivation of those who are supposed to
be encouraged by these actions; unfair advantage will always result in 
weakness.

Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Natural causes of death
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 16:00:25 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1e1gt4INNg3u@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>
>>  prostate cancer: it's extremely common in old men, but mostly
>>  it's a very slow grower and most prostate cancer victims die
>>  of natural causes.  
>
>What are "natural causes" of death?


  Sorry, bad choice of terms on my part.   Only about 30% of men 
  who have prostate cancer at the their time of death actually
  died of the prostate cancer.  


---peter


Xref: sparky soc.women:19698 alt.feminism:4527 soc.men:19387
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: what is sexist? (was Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Date: 16 Nov 92 11:57:24
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<MUFFY.92Nov14085529@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<1e3t92INNr0f@transfer.stratus.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: dswartz@sw.stratus.com's message of 14 Nov 92 22:06:26 GMT

In article <1e3t92INNr0f@transfer.stratus.com> dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber) writes:
> Muffy, if you really feel compelled to beat up on this bozo, why not take it to e-mail?

How about suggesting that to him, or to both of us?

> I'm sure if a man posted such snide, condescending putdowns on soc.women, you'd have a cow. 

*LAUGH*...well, I never have cows, and I never read soc.women, so I'm
sure that you're wrong.

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
~Weavers' fingers flying on the loom/patterns shift too fast to be
 discerned/all these years of thinking/ended up like this/in front
 of all this beauty/understanding nothing~ - Bruce Cockburn
Newsgroups: soc.women
Newsgroups: soc.women

	
	Joan,

	I believe that what you saw is simply true equality....

	A proof that women are more like men and vice versa than
	many popular opinions would have you believe.

	I have been to strip shows, and while I don't really have
	any regrets about going, I can't say it was all that great...
	(ok... it was at first... :-)

	What you saw in many of those women that went to the show
	was probably of how people treat/view (no pun intended) eachother
	in this society....  as opposed to the sexist idea that claims
	that that type of behavior is how men treat women.  Fact is,
	it is how 'we' (men and women) treat eachother... 

	It is no more disgusting than how men have been at similar
	shows....  I would not have two sets of expectations of how
	the different sexes should act.

	People being people...  that's all.

	-Mike-
From: silverm@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Jeff Silverman)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Entry level salaries (was: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Date: 16 Nov 92 05:50:32 GMT
Organization: Boeing Computer Services, Seattle

mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:

>Starbuck, Muffy has asked perfectly valid statistical questions.  
>*I* see no flame in there.  (Indeed, there is *no* position stated 
>there.)

>Now please look at your post.  You accuse her of "pissing" on stuff,
>and being a "whiner" and a "stumbling block"...  What's the deal?  
>Who's being the vitriolic complainer here?

>>I bet you don't understand why more and more people are begining to think
>>feminism sucks.

>I would certianly *hope* it's not because people like you go around 
>calling feminists "whiners" for asking questions....

>rini

Actually, the question is more complicated than that, because different people
are doing different things.  I would want to see the average salaries of people
who are attorneys compared with, say, people who are locomotive engineers.  It
might be the case that, for example, there is little discrimination among
people who are computer jocks but terribly discrimination among people who are
long haul truck drivers.  Also, the evidence is going to have to be statistical
in nature, because everybody, male and female, has good experiences and bad
experiences working.  Do women have more bad experiences than men or worse
bad experiences?

Then comes the tantalizing question of why?  Perhaps women attorneys are more
willing to represent clients who can't pay (the legal term is pro bono).  
Perhaps women are less likely to drive really long hauls, because they don't
want to be away from their families.  Or maybe they are really getting screwed.
Maybe men are more willing to fight for higher pay.  My experience at Boeing,
and it is limited experience, is that the hourly people are more willing to
strike for higher pay, so many hourly people are better paid than the salaried
people who are, presumably, better trained and scarcer.  So who's to say?
From the evidence available to us, we can't really say one way or the other
(although, speaking as the kind of white, male asshole your P.C. friends
warned you about, I have a hunch that to be a woman in our society means you
are shafted, but not as badly as any other society in recent history).

You know, we're all more or less computer literate here.  As part of the
thought process for using computers, we ought to be taking the time to think
carefully about what we know, what we think we know, etc.  We have a moral
responsibility to treat the data with respect.  The only reason why I bring this
up is that I forsee this thread turning into a flame war, and the issue is
too important for that.

Jeff Silverman, Boeing.

Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Self Appreciation (was: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 15:08:06 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.225440.2772@mr.med.ge.com> wendy@sundown.mil.wi.us writes:
>Peter Nelson (nelson_p@apollo.hp.com) wrote:

[peters post deleted]
 
>I don't know how to describe it to you. I just know I am female. I think
>like a female and naturally fit in. About the best I can do is that you
>know you're a male, I know I'm a female. I also hate my male body. It's
>the wrong body, that's all that's to it. I would do just about anything
>to change it.
>
>Did you happen to see the Discover channel program on "Brain Sex"? It
>talked about gender identification. 
[paragraph broken to isolate a sentence]

>                                    Gender (which is not the same as what
>physical sex you are) 

FYI, there are posters here who not only use sex and gender interchangably,
but claim that they are one and the same.

[[rini, this is where you delete all but the above senntence, and demand
proof, you know, because I just -have- to be misinterpreting someone]]

This can lead to communication problems if you are not aware of it. 

>                       has to do with sense of self and appears to be 
>controled by hormones during fetal development. Watch it some time, it 
>was really interesting.

Don't have cable, but it sounds interesting.
 
>Wendy
>
>PS. I prefer to be called "she"!!!! Thanks!


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: soc.women
From: rs69@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Rong Shen)
Subject: codes of honor
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 22:34:55 GMT


Just curious; what are the feminine codes of honor? and what are the
masculine codes of honor? How have the codes for both genders evolved
from the Greeks to the present?

--
rs69@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu

Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Date: 18 Nov 92 11:44:44
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<c2Fx03hvbbTp00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>
	<1992Nov17.203129.26067@u.washington.edu>
	<142V03FNbcnn00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: jsp@uts.amdahl.com's message of 18 Nov 92 18:41:04 GMT

In article <142V03FNbcnn00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James Preston) writes:
>gwangung@byron.u.washington.edu (Roger Tang) writes:

>}In article <c2Fx03hvbbTp00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jsp@pls.amdahl.com writes:
>}>This is great.  The same people who don't like being judged based solely
>}>on their looks are now judging someone based solely on what is hanging
>}>on his wall.  Yeah, yeah, I know; what *you're* doing is difference
>}>because you're claiming to judge "personality" while those evil men
>}>are merely judging physical attributes.

>}	Big difference in my book.

>Ok, so explain this difference.

Well, I don't know what Roger sees as the difference.  The way I see it,
it is much easier for a person to develop and change their personality
than it is for them to change their looks (which they are basically born
with).  When I'm spending time with them, I can only get something out
of looking at them for so long.  However, with a good personality, we
can have endless conversations.  Finally, I find that after I get to
know them, I tend to enjoy looking at a person whose personality I like,
regardless of how physically beautiful they are, while I have never
found myself liking someone's personality because of their looks.  After
a little while, the personality clashes with anyone become obvious, and
good looks are not enough to make up for serious clashes.

So, assuming that I found such a calendar offensive, and I met a person
who displayed one, I would have a fairly good idea that, no matter how
good-looking that person was, I would eventually not enjoy being around
them.  Note that this is very simplistic, and I don't really think you
can decide on the basis of one feature that you will not get along with
someone.  If I was interested in the person, I would still try to get to
know them even if I was offended by some calendar they had, since we
might get along perfectly well in general.  Of course, I *don't* object
to these calendars; someone who objected very strongly might feel that
this one point of serious disagreement was sufficient.

Muffy



--

Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
~Weavers' fingers flying on the loom/patterns shift too fast to be
 discerned/all these years of thinking/ended up like this/in front
 of all this beauty/understanding nothing~ - Bruce Cockburn
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: wendy@sundown.mil.wi.us
Subject: Re: Self Appreciation (was: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Organization: Nowhere
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 22:54:40 GMT

Peter Nelson (nelson_p@apollo.hp.com) wrote:
> In article <1992Nov17.163629.1172@mr.med.ge.com> wendy@sundown.mil.wi.us writes:
> 
>    [Some Feminist thoughts deleted]
> 
>    How do those who hold this view square it with the opinions 
>    of posters like the above?   Transexuals will frequently claim
>    that they "feel like" a member of U sex in a V body.   Indeed,
>    interesting philosophical questions are raised by just asking
>    what it means to "feel like" a member of a certain gender.
>   
>    I am a male.  I am physically attracted to females, which makes
>    me heterosexual.  I have a variety of personality characteristics
>    and might feel happy, sad, driven, angry, elated, wistful, melan-
>    choly, silly, and so forth at various times.   Yet despite all
>    of this I'm not sure what it "feels like" to be a man.   That is, 
>    I can't associate any of these feelings with "maleness" and 
>    obviously I don't know what it "feels like" to be female, either.
>    So why/how does the above poster think she (he?  --what's the
>    correct pronoun?) does?
> 
> 
> ---peter

Peter,

I don't know how to describe it to you. I just know I am female. I think
like a female and naturally fit in. About the best I can do is that you
know you're a male, I know I'm a female. I also hate my male body. It's
the wrong body, that's all that's to it. I would do just about anything
to change it.

Did you happen to see the Discover channel program on "Brain Sex"? It
talked about gender identification. Gender (which is not the same as what
physical sex you are) has to do with sense of self and appears to be 
controled by hormones during fetal development. Watch it some time, it 
was really interesting.

Wendy

PS. I prefer to be called "she"!!!! Thanks!
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: wendy@sundown.mil.wi.us
Subject: Re: Self Appreciation (was: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Organization: Nowhere
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 18:57:02 GMT

Rich Payne (payner@netcom.com) wrote:
> In article <1992Nov19.184216.12972@mr.med.ge.com> wendy@sundown.mil.wi.us writes:
> 
> [peters post deleted, again!]
>  
> > First, the dissonance that Celeste mentions is significantly stronger
> > the the "occasional" dissonance you mention. It is almost unbearable.
> > In my case, I sometimes feel like trying to rip my brain out of this body 
> > and find a female body to put it in. It is more like PAIN and HURT.
> >
> > Now, with reapect to the MMPI. As part of my evaluation I was required
> > to take the MMPI-2. The MMPI-2 is an updated version of the MMPI that
> > has been updated, especially in the area of gender. Stereotypes that
> > could be used to force the test to show male or female associations were
> > removed. 
> 
> You mean there are tests which can determine gender without gender clues?
> Curious. Since [usually] one will have the same sex and gender, would
> this not point to non-social sex differences?
> 
> Without knowing more about the tests, I am just speculating, is that OK
> rini?
> 
> I wonder if Rich Lynch has any comments on this.
> 
> >               There are also scales, apparently, to determine whether one is
> > fudging the answers. I scored exceedingly high in femaleness (over 
> > 80 percentile) without fudging. Most biological females would be expected
> > to score high like that also. The rest of my test results were what would be
> > expected from a biological female or very close. Whether this applies to 
> > anyone else, I don't know. I am also trying to describe what my therapist 
> > told me, and hopefully I haven't misstated anything.
> >
> >
> >Wendy
> 
> 
> Rich
> 
> payner@netcom.com
> 
> 
Rich,

The test can only be used as an indicator, not an absolute. It must be
used in conjunction with other data. I'm not a psychologist, so I don't
really know. He just said it colaborated other data on me.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that there was a test for gender. There
isn't, as far as I know.

Wendy
Xref: sparky soc.women:19728 alt.feminism:4557 soc.men:19413