HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Bias in Academia?
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 01:30:21 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.164531.25295@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis) writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.055950.20128@leland.Stanford.EDU>
>farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>
>> Hmmm...  where did I present any of this as fact?  My speculations
>> were exactly that [...]
>
>Yours is a very disingenuous reply.  If I were to respond:
>
>"I'm not sure what you mean.  Did your uneducated mother write this for
>you?"
>
>then you would hardly be satisfied with my later claim that I did not
>intend to imply you had an uneducated mother.

I would continue this discussion if I thought you really wanted to do
more than bitch at me.  You can do that just as easily in email.  If
you thought my speculations as to why he said what he said were any
more than speculations, I've told you they weren't.

Why don't we wait until King@Rice (I think that's who it was) responds
and see what he has to say about what he actually meant?

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Choice for men
Date: 26 Sep 92 13:27:27 GMT
Organization: TRW Financial Systems

Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis) writes:
>farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>> You think it should be at the top of the list, but the draft hasn't
>> been used in this country for 20 years.  Feminists may just think
>> there are more pressing concerns than to address an issue that hasn't
>> been an issue for 20 years.
>
>Perhaps that's because (female) feminists haven't been drafted, and
>haven't had to worry about the possibility of being drafted.  What was
>it they said about men during the Hill/Thomas fiasco?  Something like
>"They just don't understand."
>
>The draft may be infrequent, but what it lacks in continuity it makes
>up for many times over in intensity.  Let's face it, if only women were
>drafted, it would be at the top of the list.
>
>A large portion of the women's movement places little importance on the
>draft or other inequities in our society that adversely affect men. 
>It's a strategic mistake.  They could make a lot of allies if they
>would get serious about these inequities.

Things would move a LOT quicker if both sides would take up each OTHER's
causes. (a) work for true equality for women. (b) don't cast all men into
the pot made by some men. Each "side", if we must have "sides", should
work with those on the other "side", who are trying to help. Trading insults,
holding "we're hurt worse" debates, and throwing rocks from behind barricades
goes nowhere fast.
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Bias in Academia?
Date: 1 Oct 92 17:15:10 GMT
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences

In article <1ad1tjINNja6@hp-sdd.sdd.hp.com> teri@sdd.hp.com (Teri Tracey) writes:
>In article <1aap52INN77u@agate.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:
>>
>>It's absolutely fair for society to not help with childcare.
>>
>>If somebody wants to take time-out in mid-career to
>>pursue something of a personal nature that's their
>>personal choice.  They should expect a commesurate negative impact 
>>on their carrer.  And I don't care whether that "something"
>>is looking after their children for 5 years, or following
>>the Grateful Dead around for 5 years -- I am disinclined
>>to help them out with my tax dollars either way.
>
>careers and children: 
>
>I feel that you can't really separate *business* from *the people who are
>doing business*.  You (I mean the generic you, not Steve) shouldn't make 
>money in a vaccuum, as if births and deaths and the rest of people's lives 
>are secondary to making a profit.
>
>Procreation is one of the fundamental forces in being human.  I do think
>that it is important and should be taken into account when you consider
>your employees.  No, I don't think that working less should be equivalent
>to working more; but I would like to see more attention paid to the fact
>that the vast majority of people have children, and that this is not
>abnormal, or inconvenient, or necessarily burdensome. 
>
>Sometimes I think "having a career" is way overrated.  It can be somewhat
>impersonal.  How many jobs are really that earthshattering, that you can
>look back and say, "selling those widgets sure put a warm feeling in my
>heart."  I have been out of school for three years and my attitude towards
>a career has changed so much.  Yes, I can work a 60 hour work week.  I don't
>choose to, and I know an attitude like that will keep me from achieving the
>most money I "could" in my profession (engineering).  But life can be so 
>much more than the daily grind...there's so many interesting things in the
>world, and people have a lot of talents that aren't used in their jobs,
>and it's a shame if they're not expressed.
>
>Does anyone else feel this way?
>
>Well, my rambling $0.02,

I agree with you on all points.  BUT, the issue was *government* tax-dollars,
not *business* investments/daycare/leave etc.  There is a big difference, IMHO.
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Subject: Re: "Attack Pattern" #2
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 20:29:21 GMT

Rich, I've already responded here to you once re why I wouldn't have responded
to the original post, but you've put me in again in connection with GF, and I
want to be sure you see the differences this time.

There were and are significant differences between GF and I.

Samples:
In my experience women and men are equally underhanded.

Your experience, Gordon's experience, and that other guy's (sorry) are all
equally valid.
In some cases, you may be shown to have an unusual experience by reputable
studies.  This does not invalidate your experience, it merely shows it as
atypical, or indicates perception differences from the majority.

I think you have confused GF and myself a lot, and truly believe that most of
the "hostility" you sensed from me was not there.
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
From: hans@Software.Mitel.COM (Hans Johnsen)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: The Pill
Date: 6 Oct 92 13:00:06 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

tjw+@pitt.edu writes:
>BTW:  I heard on the ABC nightly news last night that women who have taken
>the pill are less likely to develop ovarian cancer.  The longer one is on
>the pill the greater the protection.

I haven't seen a report on this yet, but was it 'develop', or 'die from'.
Because the pill has an obvious advantage in that you are required to have
an annual pap smear when on it. If the study says 'die from' and they did
not control for this then the conclusion is not very useful.

The reason I am skeptical is that I had always heard that the pill made
ovarian cancer MORE likely. Or am I mistaken? Possibly this is the case
(greater risk with the pill) with some other reproductive cancer?
-- 
Take off all your clothes and walk down the street waving a machete
and firing an Uzi, and terrified citizens will phone the police and
report: "There's a naked person outside!" - Mike Nichols
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: "Alt.feminism - why it should be shut down.  A sample post!"
From: moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (moz [chris moseley])
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 02:38:04 GMT
Organization: Electrical Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand

tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood) writes:
> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
> > So, are you also this hostile to editors of newspapers, magazines, etc.
> > Do you believe that they actually are in favor of censorship, regardless
> > of how much they argue with anyone who tries it?

> No, just to people who edit down my paragraphs and try to twist my words
> into their own agendas!

So, you only object if it's YOU personally who is edited? If it is some
nameless writer for a newspaper, then that's fine?

I also take it that you never write letters to the editor? Or give
interviews to anyone? Or have anything to do with producing material
for the media in general? They ALL edit you to hell and gone, so that
what you give them comes out how they want it.

> > Or are you just completely close-minded on the subject of *feminists*
> > who edit things, not editors and such in general?

> Well, I don't think much of the feminists in "Men Against Rape and
> Pornography".  I don't know how much they "edit". *laugh*

who cares about the feminists, what about EVERYBODY else.


*love* & *hugs*
  ____MOZ___    (moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz)
 /\  _______\
 \ \ \____  / something always goes wrong when things are going right
  \ \ \/ / /  You've swallowed your pride to quell the pain inside
   \ \/ / /   someone captured your heart, like a thief in the night
    \  / /    and squeezed all the juice out, until it ran dry
     \/_/     (The The, `Soulmining', by Matt Johnson)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
From: sklautky@vaxa.weeg.uiowa.edu (Stephen Klautky)
Subject: Re: the new contraceptives for women (was Re: Choice for men
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 06:17:00 GMT

In article <19t5h1INNh32@gap.caltech.edu>
peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:

>sklautky@vaxa.weeg.uiowa.edu (Stephen Klautky) writes:

>>Another potentially interesting situation - what if a company,
>>foundation or rich person said to girls in a predominantly black
>>high school with high birth rates - If you allow Norplant to be
>>implanted during your freshman year you will get a couple thousand
>>dollars for a college scholarship at the end of high school....
>>what is a feminist reaction to such a situation?  Would it be okay if
>>the government sponsored it?  Would it matter if the girls were
>>black or white?  Would it make a difference if they were not 
>>offered the scholarship?

>I don't like the condition of getting the scholarship *if* the 
>girl has norplant implanted in her freshman year.  First, Norplant
>may not be safe for 14 year-old girls (some of whom are not even
>menstruating yet).  Second, Norplant is not the only way of avoiding
>pregnancy.

>I find much more palatable the idea of promising girls a scholarship
>on the condition that they do not get pregnant before graduating from
>high school, and then offering them a choice of contraceptive methods.

I understand the reservations about using Norplant in young women
from a health-related point of view.  I posed the question more
for a theoretical discussion.  It's directed to question the limits
of what we can do to minimize pregnancy in girls/women who are not
physically, emotionally or financially prepared to take on the
situation.

The advantage of Norplant is that there is a minimal worry that
she will get pregnant.  Unless it is removed there is a high
probability that the scholarship will be awarded.  With other
methods there will be a higher "failure" rate because it is harder
to be as consistent with them compared to Norplant.

BTW, a similar situation could be applied to men if there was a
drug to do it with.  But the number of pregnancies this program
would prevent may be less than that compared to one targeted to
girls.  We need to ask: who are the boys/men that get these girls
pregnant?  Can they be educated to have safer sex?  Obviously, if
this worked well there would be no need for Norplant.

-=] Steve [=-    SKLAUTKY@VAXA.WEEG.UIOWA.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (moz [chris moseley])
Subject: Re: The 75% woman
Organization: Electrical Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 21:53:04 GMT

farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:

> I think there would be an intense competition for men, women would
> share men in romantic/sexual relationships, or more women would
> discover their bisexuality.  Probably variations of all three.  (I've
> read some stuff on the net, purely anecdotal, which suggests more
> women than men are bisexual.  That seems to be true, from my own
> experience.  Of course, this is my bias, since I'm convinced that most
> people are bisexual and become strictly heterosexual by society's
> conditioning.)

I suspect it also has something to do with women being seen as attractive
more. It is harder for men INHO, so find ways of being/ looking attractive
than for women. As well, there is a lot of negativity about masculinity
around. Consequently, more people are attracted to women.

This is just me, speaking as a Bi male, who has more ex-girlfriends than
ex-boyfriends. Mostly because I find so few males attractive, and find it
so hard to break the macho conditioning and relate to men. Mind you, it
also means women tend to run away screaming when they discover my
sexuality. Allan Hunter has written an interesting article/ essay
on `sissy' men that sums up much of this. Me, when I get to a certain 
level of lacking-SO-ness, can get quite pick-up-type aggressive, and
usually end up with a girlfriend fairly quickly once this buildup starts.
Unfortunately I then turn round and go back to my normal touchy-feely 
sensitive male role, and the now ex-girlfriend gets irate.

(this is what I understand from comments from friends and ex-lovers, having
read the above article and re-interpreted some comments in that light.)

moz
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Bias in Academia?
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 22:33:40 GMT

In article <garry-290992125556@nulla-nulla.rice.edu> garry@rice.edu (Garry C. King) writes:
>farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) wrote:
>>
>> This is not at all obvious to me what you mean by this.  Do you mean
>> that you, as the sole wage-earner in your family, can't spend more
>> time with it?  Do you mean that your female friend, with a husband who
>> earns as much or more than she, can?
>> Or is it that your wife does most of the childcare as you work and
>> your female friend does most of the childcare as she works?
>
>> Why don't we wait until King@Rice (I think that's who it was) responds
>> and see what he has to say about what he actually meant?
>
>I'm not terribly keen on my life being used as the cause for yet more
>deliberate misunderstanding, but here goes. 

No, I didn't deliberately misunderstand.  Frankly, I didn't know what
you meant, so I asked.  

>The point I was trying to make is this: 
>>If you're going to pursue a demanding career (and academia is demanding for
>me at least), then large amounts of time and energy will be required to
>reach the "top" levels.  Time and energy that many (most ?) women would
>prefer to partially channel towards child rearing for at least some of
>their working lives (all three of our female faculty are childless). 

Ah, that's my point, too.  Do women prefer to channel their energies
towards child rearing at the expense of their professional careers?
Of course, no one forces women to become pregnant, but to say that
women prefer to channel their energies towards childcare is
questionable.  If, by default, most women end up doing most childcare
because their careers are assumed to be less important or earn less
money, is that fair to women?

>I'll turn it around.  Would it be fair for a woman who worked shorter hours
>or took a substantial break in the middle of her career to reach the top as
>fast as her male peers who worked non-stop through the same period ? 

It is fair for a society not to help with childcare and then present
us with this as the only "reasonable" choice?

Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
From: mpon@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (Malcolm Pon)
Subject: Re: Value of Womens' Lives (was: _Backlash_)
Organization: George Mason University, Fairfax, Va.
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 14:41:13 GMT

As I read these arguments back and forth, I keep wanting to say "Please
try reading..." this or that literary work/criticism/story.

Almost all of you are wasting your time here, arguing and arguing
points that are always argued in these kinds of fora.  The arguments are
circular and make us sit and yell at each other while doing nothing.
It's a shame, because I know that all of you are capable of doing more
than just writing endless arguments to each other.

I'm not going to try to change anyone's mind here, nor am I going to try
to clarify anyone's arguments.  It's clear that we're all stuck with our
own perceptions of things and our own ways of thinking about things.
It's very, very hard to change a person's deep seated feelings by debate
alone.

What I'd like to urge, is that all of us take time out of this kind of
activity to improve our general knowledge.  One of the best ways to do
this is to _read_.  Anything, and diverse things.  Not only do I
recommend that we read things that are sympathetic to our numerous
personal causes, but try giving the other side a read, and a real one.
Don't just read to criticize, but read to learn how other people are
thinking.

Aside from giving us knowledge, it acclimates us to an environment of
disagreement.  People will always disagree and argue, but we can also
understand each other to a point, if we take the time and effort to try
to understand why our opponents think the way they do.  We may not hold
the same precepts or background, but with some time, empathy and effort,
we can all understand at least a little bit of what motivates our
opponents.

Eventually, we can even try to apply this new perception here, or in
places like this one and _avoid_ rehashing the same old arguments.  We
can actually watch our conversation and discussion evolve.

It's a great thing.  Educate yourself... never stop.

Malcolm
-- 
                                                      ____
 - Malcolm Pon                                        \ _/__
Internet: mpon@gmuvax2.gmu.edu    GEnie: ETERNITY      \\  /
"Why do we CRUCIFY ourselves?" - Tori Amos               \/
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Women as Victims (was:_Backlash_ ( Sort of ))
Date: 6 Oct 92 22:58:34 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

| > garry:
| > | BTW, did Robert propose a "return to the kitchen amendment" ? (hint: no).
| > | I assume that I've stepped into some long-standing personal argument here. 
| > | If so, I apologise for taking your statements seriously.

gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
| > I don't understand your last two sentences; if they're 
| > relevant, could you elucidate?  I thought I was just
| > following Robert's text, not some long-standing et cetera.

garry@rice.edu (Garry C. King) writes:
| I haven't seen anything in any of Robert's posts that I've read to suggest
| that he wants to preferentially fire, demote or otherwise reduce the role
| of any women in the workplace.  Your response struck me as disingenuous. 
| In essence, Robert asked for equality, but you replied as if he had
| proposed banishing women into the kitchen.  The man is straw, so obviously
| that I had to assume you were continuing some long-standing nyah nyah
| argument.

He says things as they are, are bad -- that some effort
is needed to save men from oppression by feminists.  One
issue was "preferential" hiring.  I gave an example of 
such "preferential" hiring and since it is what is, I have
to assume if Robert finds it bad, he must want to do
something about it.  Not so?  Otherwise what's the
point of rolling back "preferential" hiring?

Maybe I misunderstand.  Maybe _yesterday's_ "preferential"
hiring was okay, but today's is bad.  But if that's the
idea, Robert should say so.

garry:
| Personally, I think this group should be named alt.equalitarian, since most
| arguments seem to be over equality vs. special preference for women, but
| what the hell. 

Start a thread in alt.config suggesting an "alt.equalitarian"
newsgroup.  Maybe it'll be a hit.  I thought there was already
an alt.equal-rights or something like that.  One of the 20 or
30 libertarian newsgroups....
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek)
Subject: Re: Conditioning during Masturbation
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 92 03:18:59 GMT

gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:

>barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>| > 	Speaking of hilarious, I simply must repeat a small piece of
>| > that MacKinnon quote, just to savor it:
>| 
>| > 	"Masturbating over the positions taken by the women's bodies
>| > associates male orgasm with the positions expressed in the articles."
>| 
>| > 	And people actually take this woman seriously?

>This seems like elementary stuff to me.  Not that it's
>proven -- one would have to run some kind of psychological
>tests to show whether or not it was true -- but as a
>proposition it's fairly reasonable.  Goes right back to
>Pavlov and his slavering dogs.  Masturbation gives
>intense pleasure, pleasure is associated with magazine,
>magazine contains articles.  Could be the chain breaks,
>but the idea isn't absurd.

So, men can't even WACK OFF without commiting some sort of thought crime?
Hmmm, if it came down to it, I guess I would rather let the religious
right rule the country than people who think like this.  The R.R. will at
least allow marriage and tele-evangelism as sexual outlets.

--
Paul Ciszek, pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu | No nation was ever drunk when wine was
                                   | cheap.   -- Thomas Jefferson
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda (Was: Value of...)
Date: 5 Oct 92 22:32:08 GMT
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences

>Somebody posts a MacKinnen quote that's anti male-only-draft.

>Hillel posts a few "choice" MacKinnen quotes in concatenation the 1st one.

>Lynch (me) agrees some of the quotes are garbage, but asks for data (nothing
>new there, eh?) such as date of publication and context.
>Also wants details about what's wrong with a long one about Playboy, since
>it's complex and I'm not convinced it's garbage.

>Barry posts stuff about MacKinnen's animism.

>Several others post [before I can :-(] how silly the animism argument is.

>Barry rises to the occasion with a cogent and relatively well-thought-out
>discussion with those people, except he keeps in the animism stuff, but we'll
>let that slide, esp. since it might be just for historic reasons, or a dislike
>of backing down.

I'm still wondering what Hillel found wrong with the MacKinnen Playboy thing.
[Did I miss it?]

I also want to thank barry et al for taking the discussion to a more serious
level.

My views (if anyone cares):

I think Playboy *does* portray women just as sex objects (interview responses
notwithstanding), and I'm sure it is offensive, but if you're offended you can
ignore it.  Censorship is worse, though.

The contention that Playboy might influence someone to rape is tenuous.  I am
not willing to say that it could never happen, but I don't think that it will.
I mean, someone sick enough to rape is not going to be swayed by the presence
or absence of Playboy et al.  The possibility that there might be that one case
where the absence of Playboy made a difference just seems so remote.  The
possibility that I'm wrong makes me real nervous, though, I must admit.

[Aside:  I'd sure go for a no-parole and/or death-penalty for rapists, tho.
         There's way too high a % of repeat offenders.  I forgot the #, sorry.]

I do think MacKinnen has a valid point about what she finds offensive about
Playboy, all rhetoric aside.  I don't think that her (and others) being
offended means they should be able to censor, though.  OTOH, somebody who comes
up and forces her to look at a Playboy (or has it hanging in their work-place)
is being extremely rude.  Whether it should be illegal or considered
harrassment is discussed elsewhere, but I'll just throw in that I wouldn't
want federal law to outlaw Playboy on any wall of any workplace, but that if
somebody is really offended by Playboy on the wall they have to look at, it
should go.
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu