HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Subject: Re: Plato's Views on Women
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 08:42:42 GMT
Keywords: Plato, politics, women, feminism

In article <1992Nov6.161153.9610@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>koc5@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>|>As a newcomer to women's studies and to feminist philosophy I could also use 
>|>refernces to the most important recent work.  The University of Chicago,
>|>where I attend, seems unusually benighted in its lack of a women's studies
>|>department or even a women's studies bibliographer.
>
>brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>| Since you are just getting started, I would think that the first order of
>| bussiness ought to be to seriously question whether "feminist philosophy"
>| is a valid field of study.  In my view, to place sex at such a 
>| fundamental position in one's way of thinking is simply absurd.
>
>Brian, you haven't done the reading.  I suggest -- in the case
>of feminism -- you peruse some of the philosophical works 
>periodically listed in the soc.feminism newsgroup.  Surely
>it must occur to you that what you call sex must have
>considerable importance if it was the basis of shutting half
>of the human race out of most of what we fondly call 
>history.

Sure Gordon.  Anything you say.  

Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM 
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Subject: Re: Plato's Views on Women
Keywords: Plato, politics, women, feminism
Organization: QQQCLC
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 17:31:13 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.111948.4953@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>In article <1992Nov10.232420.26220@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>}>Which ever side of these positions you take, you can't say that BOTH
>}>sides of the issue are true.
>}
>}	Oh, but I would; or, more accurately, I'd say that the notion of
>}truth as some objectively measurable thing is not applicable to such
>}questions.
>
>Sounds relativist to me, which is a well-known position independent of
>feminism.  (In)Famous relativists include Il Duce, Mussolini himself, and
>Der Fuhrer, Hitler, who often spouted off about how truth was relative to
>race, hence "Jewish" physics and "Aryan" logic.

	Well, Tim, someone as good at putting words in my mouth as you
are doesn't need me to argue with him in person. Why don't you just
debate yourself, and I'll watch you jack off from the sidelines.

						Kayembee
Xref: sparky soc.women:19397 alt.abortion.inequity:5045 talk.abortion:47721 alt.feminism:4248 soc.men:19140
From: KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu (Kurt Ludwick)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Was Clinton's victory America's message to the Anti-Choice?
Date: 12 Nov 92 05:43:16 GMT
Article-I.D.: psuvm.92317.004316KEL111
 <92311.022651KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> <1992Nov9.160245.8890@athena.mit.edu>
Distribution: na

In article <1992Nov9.160245.8890@athena.mit.edu>, purdon@cons1.mit.edu (James
Purdon) says:

>>You were watching a different election.  The issue of abortion was virtually
>>-never- addressed, by either sides.  It was never mentioned in the vice-pre-
>>sidential debates. And I never saw representatives of NOW or Planned Parent-

I meant 'only addressed in the V.P. debates.  Typo, sorry.

>I must have been watching a different election too, then, and especially
>a different vice-presidential debate.  In the debate I saw, Al Gore
>asked Dan Quale to state that he (Dan) supported a woman's right to
>choose, and Dan wouldn't.

If I were Dan, I wouldn't have answered such a patronizing charge, even if I
agreed with him.  (Which Dan does not, of course.)

------------
Kurt Ludwick
------------
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Subject: Re: Plato's Views on Women
Keywords: Plato, politics, women, feminism
Organization: QQQCLC
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 23:24:20 GMT

In article <BxGJ16.2GL@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>In article <1992Nov8.174054.9777@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>>In article <BxE64p.ID5@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>>>the answers to philosophical questions are matters of objective fact
>
>>	Uh, Brian, did you really mean to say this?
>
>Yes, I meant exactly what I said.  Perhaps a few examples will make this
>clear.
>
>[examples deleted]
>
>Which ever side of these positions you take, you can't say that BOTH
>sides of the issue are true.

	Oh, but I would; or, more accurately, I'd say that the notion of
truth as some objectively measurable thing is not applicable to such
questions.

>If you don't understand why that is, just assert that the answers to 
>philosophical questions are NOT matters of objective fact, and I'll show
>you what I mean.

	OK. Answers to philosophical questions are (usually) not matters
of objective fact.

	Your turn.

						Kayembee
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
From: kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall)
Subject: Re: A GREAT Night for Americans!  (Women especially!)
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 19:59:32 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.234831.7188@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
>In article <lflrolINNjc6@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> falk@peregrine.Sun.COM (Ed Falk) writes:
>)In article <1992Nov5.184032.1539@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
>)>
>)>A friend has been trying to convince me that Clinton might not be as bad
>)>for men ... as I think he is.
>)
>)Why the assumption that anything good for women is automatically bad
>)for men?
>
>Clinton's Draconian (tm) program wrt. 'deadbeat dads' is a matter of
>record.  Rather than attempt to address the inequities in the system,
>Clintion apparently plans to ram it down our throats with a 'draconian'
>solution.  This is direct harm.

 Write him.  Send him information about the problems the new child
 support laws create for dads who want to "do the right thing".
 One thing I LIKE about Clinton is that he can change his decision
 based on NEW information - unlike Bush.  Bush would NEVER admit he
 made a mistake - until it came to "doing whatever it takes to get
 re-elected".  I'm so relieved that he's gone.

>
>Clintion's support of the proposal of even yet more funding for Breast Cancer
>research seems to me to be clearly discriminatory, given the fact that it is
>funded at 2.5x the death rate of other forms of cancer research, and is
>rising above that already high figure.

 Where did you hear this?

>
>It seems likely that his sexism will carry over into other 'politically
>popular' causes.  This implies harm by neglect.

 Even more than women's issues - I think Clinton will actively work on
 improving life for our children.  Something Reagan/Bush paid lip service
 to, but have deeply ignored.

 Clinton's program in Arkansas to provide education to impoverished parents, 
 along with their children, and then teach the parents how to teach their 
 children, shows true concern for children and smacks of real "family values", 
 IMHO.
   
 Janice Kendall    kendall@adobe.com    ...!{decwrl|sun}!adobe!kendall

      Don't Panic!  Clinton will be our *42*nd President.


Xref: sparky soc.women:18923 alt.abortion.inequity:4877 talk.abortion:46854 alt.feminism:3808 soc.men:18737
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Was Clinton's victory America's message to the Anti-Choice?
Date: 6 Nov 92 15:36:45 GMT
Article-I.D.: spssig.adams.721064205
Distribution: na
Organization: SPSS Inc.

roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:

>In article <1992Nov5.194006.22702@netcom.com> tyger@netcom.com (Kristen Kohlbecker) writes:
>
>>PS: Since when is a Margin of 35 Million votes to 30 million votes a ROUT or
>>    a LANDSLIDE?
>
>The only time I have seen LANDSLIDE mentioned is with regards to the 
>electoral votes, where Clinton got more than three times the number that
>Bush did.  Perot got none.

The final totals gave Bush aprox 180 electoral votes.  3x that would be
more votes than are available total.  Clinton did not even double Bush's
electoral total, winning with aprox 90 more than needed.  A nice,
comfortable margin electorally, but hardly a landslide.

>With regards to a mandate, everything I've read and seen (mostly the 
>non-media C-SPAN) suggests the single most important issue of this 
>campaign was -- trickle-down-economics: keep it or lose it?
No.  It was "George Bush does/does not deserve reelection."  George Bush
was NOT Reagan.  He made deals with the Demos.  He didn't take action when
people thought he should.  Many Republicans hated him.  I voted against him
because he didn't deserve reelection.  Nor did I vote for Clinton.

As it turns out, 60%+ felt that Bush should NOT be reelected, but only 43%
felt that Clinton should be.

The Democrats lost about 10 seats in the House, and at best, can pick up
one seat in the Senate.  If the runoff in Georgia goes Republican, they
will hold their totals.  And depending on what happens in the special
election in ND (Burdick seat, vacated by his death) the Republicans could 
actually pick up a seat.

There was not even a mandate for 'change'...a plurality for change at the
top, but for the status quo in Congress.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Organization: Georgia Tech Research Institute
Date: Wednesday, 4 Nov 1992 20:54:08 EST
From: Jeffery Swagger <CMSTEST@GTRI01.GATECH.EDU>
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Am I "exploiting" this woman?
 <1992Nov3.195735.13037@adobe.com> <Bx6EA9.Mz9@ccu.umanitoba.ca>

In article <Bx6EA9.Mz9@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John
Aarts) says:
>
>In <1992Nov3.195735.13037@adobe.com> kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall)
>writes:
>
>
>> 2) Same with the offensive magazine - it should be read in private, not
>>    public.  How would you feel if you walked up to a woman at lunch to
>>    visit and then realized she was staring at a picture of some guy's
>>    erect penis?
>
>      This is very authorative, telling people what they can and cannot read
>in
>your presence.  It is also pretty narrow.  I don't see why anybody should be
>upset at the woman for reading an erotic magazine.
>
>
>> Guys, it can't be too much skin off your back to keep this stuff at home.
>> Put it on the ceiling over your bed, in your bathroom, on your refrigerator,
>> I don't care, but don't put it on your office wall.  I tend to avoid men
>> who put such things on their office walls as I tend to feel that they have
>> little respect for the women with which they work.
>
>        This also seems to be a pretty narrow view of people.  Do you really
>think that the fact that a women puts up a Chip & Dale's calender says
>anything
>about what she thinks of you as an individual?
>
>
>> An interesting experiment is to bring in similar material which features
>> the opposite sex and display it in a similar fashion - sometimes people
>> have to experience the discomfort themselves.
>
>        And sometimes people have to realize that we are not all carbon copies
>of each other. People can have different tastes.
>

My feelings on this are strongly on the side of Kenneth's.  I will
simply never understand why people like Janice take offense at
such things.  But, be that as it may, we simply must be able to work
together.  So is it really too much to ask that "adult entertainment",
or for that matter religious material, not be brought into the workplace?
Or, before engaging in "Eddie Murphy" type humor, ensuring that all the
people around have the same taste in humor?  Notice here I am not
talking about "rights";  just simple consideration for other peoples
feelings and sensibilities.  I would also suggest that there are many
people out there who could do with a healthy injection of tolerance.

The workplace is becoming increasingly diversified with respect to
race, creed, gender, ethnic backgrounds, religion, etc.  IMHO, we
must all become more considerate and tolerant of each other if
we wish to avoid having the workplace turned into a battle ground.

Jeff
--
Honk if you love peace and quiet.  -- Seen on rec.humor
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism
From: biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel)
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp.
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:49:24 GMT

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

...[veritable orgy of agreement deleted]...

>>To observe a difference, or to treat people differently based upon
>>their sex is not sexist IMO unless people suffer from such differences in
>>treatment.

>I can go with that.  

>>There are, of course, numerous feminists who disagree with this view, and
>>who would argue for (almost) completely sex-blind treatment of people. 

>I don't see how wanting sex-blind treatment disagrees with this 
>view...  Can you explain?

It seems to me that some feminists would argue against *any* difference in
the treatment of people, on ideological grounds alone, and regardless of
whether any damage can be shown. I'm more of a pragmatist in these matters:
show me how a specific practice causes suffering, and I'll work to change
it; make general claims on theoretical grounds, and I'll dispute them until
hell freezes over.

...[more unseemly agreeableness deleted]...

Regards,
       H. Biesel
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 00:27:08 GMT

In article <MUFFY.92Nov8075453@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <1992Nov8.004801.28326@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov7.192650.19040@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>>>What we are seeing is more men being affected by this need to be
>>>physically perfect too. [...] 
>>>I'm sure some people think turn about is fair play,
>>>but I don't want men saddled with these unreal expectations.  I don't
>>>want to see a very skinny 12 year old boy talk about how fat he is.
>
>>Well, at least we're *all* getting #@$%^&! up by the media, not just women.
>>Ain't much of an improvement, is it?
>
>Pretty depressing.  It might be an improvement...maybe once it is
>happening to everyone, men will stop saying that it's just a problem of
>women, who have no sense of  humor or appreciation of art, and will try
>to join women and *do* something about it.  Actually, probably not...but
>I can always hope.

Actually, I'm going to be less cynical now and point out that there *has* been
some improvement...but, then, I wonder:  How come bulimia didn't show up
before?  Were we blind or did it really not exist?  If the latter, maybe things
*are* just worse.
[All of this is just meandering on my part, not meant as serious argument.]
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Xref: sparky soc.women:19424 alt.abortion.inequity:5048 talk.abortion:47735 alt.feminism:4261 soc.men:19163
From: rlt@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (r l taylor)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Date: 12 Nov 92 16:02:34 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnewsl.1992Nov12.160234.9244
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <BxK49M.1xz@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>In article <1dpvnpINNeha@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:

>>We're talking about notification of *abortion*.

>No, the person to whom I responded made a statement about a husband's
>right to know regarding general reproductive matters.

>S/he (r l taylor) wrongly dismissed the question of husbands' liability
>for wives' pregnancies regardless of genetics, by saying,

>"By all means, any husbands who may be tricked into raising children conceived
>by another man, take the child in for genetic testing, ..."

Nope, that wasn't me.  Somewhere along the way, the attributions got
mixed up.  I (a "she", BTW) suggested a number of reasons why I felt
a man had a right to know if he was not the father of his wife's child.
And, as I tried to make clear, that's the *only* issue I was addressing.
There have been enough points from all sides, regarding notification of
abortion.  Anything I might have said, has already been said (repeatedly).

Roberta
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell)
Subject: Re: what is sexist? (was Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 00:04:14 GMT

In article <MUFFY.92Nov12152904@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <38MD03ktbajB00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James Preston) writes:
>> [...] My dictionary [...]
>> Similarly, "sexism" is defined as:
>> "Discrimination by members of one sex against the other, especially by
>> men agains women, based on the assumption that one sex is superior."
>> Notice that it clearly says *especially* by men against women, not
>> exclusively.  And again, no qualifiers about the "non-dominant group".
>
>Well, that's very interesting.  If we accept your dictionary's
>definition of sexism, it would follow that a woman who discriminated
>against men, but did not assume that women were superior to men, would
>not be sexist, since the discrimination has to be based on the
>assumption that one sex is superior.  In that case, something like
>affirmative action would not be sexist, since it is based on the
>assumption that neither sex is superior.
>
>I'm not sure if I agree with this definition, but it certainly puts an
>interesting light on "reverse sexism," since that would have to be based
>on the assumption that women are superior.
>
>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

I have made the claim that sexism can apply to anyone and have actually
proven wrong with a dictionary definition.  I dont think it matters.
I have to yet to talk to someone SO unreasonable that they would actually
not admit that everyone was capable of making false/disparaging generalizations
about groups of people, based on experience with indviduals.  Hate to
say it but some do come close like essentialist feminists, but I have
little use for them anyway.  I just cut conversation short by asking
them what have I done to offend them, and I modify my behaviour if
it seems reasonable.  If not, I walk away.

Steve R

Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 18:34:26 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Nov13.174714.14566@cbnews.cb.att.com> lib@cbnews.cb.att.com (Lib) writes:

>>  The trend towards ultra-thin models is based on the fact that photography
>>and translation to 2D adds psychological weight to the picture. The models
>>must therefore be underweight to be seen as "normal" by the average
>>viewer of the ad.

  Here's what I don't understand about this thesis:  If the camera
  adds apparent weight so that a thin model looks "normal" and
  if girls are trying to emulate what they see in the pictures
  they would be trying to emulate "normal" since that's how the 
  girls in the picture would appear.

---peter

Xref: sparky soc.women:19380 soc.men:19127
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: Abortion and humanity
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com (Michael Rivero)
Date: 11 Nov 92 16:27:44 PDT
 <1992Nov6.220432.18764@ncsa.uiuc.edu> <1992Nov7.023435.10116@netcom.com>
Distribution: world
Organization: M&E (Division of EDS), Cypress CA

In article <1992Nov7.023435.10116@netcom.com>, bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
|> 
|> Bugs respond to outside stimuli.  You can't be sentient without being
|> aware, but you can be aware without being sentient; a fetus may be
|> aware, but can you demonstrate signs of its sentience?

  You're in a temporary coma, recovering slowly but steadily. Next
week you'll be out playing in the sun. Right now, can you demonstrate
signs of sentience? If not, does that make it okay to pull the plug
on your respirator?


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com  "Middle-aged Mutant Ninja Animator" |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|     This is my last week at EDS (mdcbbs.com) and since I am planning   |
|    to run the animation shop as a full-time business (unless a higher  |
|    paying job comes along) I will be off the net for the near future.  |
|    I want to thank all the posters, my net-friends, and even my        |
|    net-enemies for having made this last year a most interesting and   |
|    colorful time!                                                      |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
From: twain@milton.u.washington.edu (Barbara Hlavin)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Plato's Views on Women
Keywords: Plato, politics, women, feminism
Date: 12 Nov 92 05:34:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Nov12.053433.3492
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Nov11.110753.4523@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>This bit about there being no women in the history taught prior to the
>1970s strikes me as plain nonsense on its face.  What about all the famous
>women in history, as far back as Cleopatra?
>
And what were you taught about Cleopatra? 

I learned that she was a Famous Seductress, who by having love 
affairs with Antony and Julius Caesar was an indirect cause of 
civil unrest in Rome, and the direct cause of the tragic broken 
friendship of two great men. 

When she lost her lover she committed suicide, in one of two silly 
ways: clasping an asp to her bosom, or dissolving a pearl in vinegar 
and drinking it. 


I'd be very surprised if you learned that she was named by her father, 
Ptolemy XIII, as his successor, and that when her brother, who was her 
elder sibling, tried to take sole control of the government, Cleopatra 
managed to muster an army in Syria and drove her brother into refuge 
with the king of Egypt, whose advisors subsequently had him murdered. 





>}Speaking of Plato, I was at Georgetown University when Bill Clinton
>}was there, and I had the interesting experience there of having an
>}instructor, a Christian Brother, exclude me, as the only woman in
>}the philosophy class, from two lectures that discussed Plato.
>}Presumably because he was uncomfortable discussing Plato in front of
>}me.  I could have complained to the dean, but this was pre-feminist-
>}consciousness, so I didn't complain, I just let this be part of what
>}convinced me to quit school. 
>
>And I had a chemistry teacher whose high school professor told her that she
>didn't belong in the class because she was a girl.  So what?  Citing cases
>of sexist prejudice in the past hardly bolsters the case that there's been
>some widespread practice of neglecting to give due credit to the achievements
>of women.  What are these achievements?  Who are these women?  How were they
>covered up?
>
>
>Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
>starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu
>
>"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
>oneself and others." - Voltaire
Xref: sparky soc.women:19180 alt.abortion.inequity:4986 talk.abortion:47380 alt.feminism:4048 soc.men:18962