HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Subject: Re: Why are many low-income women fat? (was Re: Separate but Equal?)
Date: 23 Dec 92 08:25:29 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Dec20.163029.19861@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:

>I did not state that "fat people cannot be physically fit" (another
>misrepresentation rini), but that they are -not- fit. If the distinction
>is to subtle, then this thread should die.

You state that people can be fit or fat. Exclusive or.

You state that one who is fat can become fit. That it is all a matter
of personal choice. 

You talk about how one can become fit - but you do not talk about
how one can become fat. 

If you assign no relative value to being either fit or fat, why is this?
If it's simply that some people have a layer of body fat and some don't,
just like some are shorter and some are taller, who cares? 

If it doesn't matter whether you're fit or fat, and one person can (as
you assert) change between these two states as a matter of personal
choice (rather like changing hair color) why are you not talking about
how to become fat? 

Are you not implying that fit is better than fat?

Does it not follow from that that fat is not as good as fit?

And does it not follow from that that fat people aren't as good as
people who have made themselves fit?

I simply followed your thoughts to their logical conclusion.

BTW: I agree with you that diets are usually destructive. And no, I 
haven't filed any discrimination suits. 

-jen

Newsgroups: alt.feminism,sci.skeptic,soc.women,soc.men
From: srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller)
Subject: Re: Retardation and Rape (was: Re: Mysogynist Bullshit)
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 14:12:16 GMT

lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney) writes:

>In <Bzy3Gv.7vH@world.std.com> srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller) writes:

>>Similarly, a person who is mentally defective
>>(defined: "...suffers from a mental disease or defect which renders
>>him incapable of appraising the nature of his conduct" PL 130) also
>>cannot legally give consent.  

>But if the Glen Ridge defendants were convicted SOLELY on the basis
>that the victim was retarded, they would only be guilty of statutory
>rape, and would (I suspect) face a significantly lighter sentence.
>You'd have to show actual lack of consent for a regular rape charge to
>stick.

Incorrect.  PL 130.05(3)(b) makes mental incapacity the legal
equivalent of actual lack of consent.  From that point on, the
charge of rape is treated identically with any other.  (As it should
be, IMHO).
>-- 
>larry kolodney:(lkk@panix.com) 
>_(*#&)#*&%)@(*^%_!*&%^!)*&#+!*&$+!?&%+!*&^_)*&#%)*&^%#+&
>The past is not dead, it's not even past.   - Wm. Faulkner
-- 
Stevens R. Miller J.D.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women,sci.skeptic
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: Critique of Gimbutas' "Idyllic Goddess" Claims
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 08:17:21 GMT

In article <1i519vINNl95@pith.uoregon.edu> delancey@darkwing.uoregon.edu (Scott C DeLancey) writes:
>I have no problem with Shaeffer's conclusions, or with most of his cited
>material on Gimbutas, but he goes overboard in tossing in criticism of
>Gimbutas' Kurgan hypothesis.  True, this is somewhat controversial, like
>any other theory about prehistory, but it is by no means the same kind
>of silliness as the "Idyllic Goddess" culture story.  In fact, some version
>of it is widely accepted in scholarly circles, and it has both more 
>empirical support and more adherents than any competing story.
>
>Remember that every claim ever made in archeology is controversial.  It
>is unfair--and detracts considerably from the argument--to equate the
>inevitable controversy about what is nevertheless an eminently respectable
>theory, with the very different situation of unanimous rejection of
>a clearly untenable theory, even when the two theories are the work of
>the same individual.  The "Idyllic Goddess" story does depend on the
>idea of Indo-European migrations into Europe, but the converse doesn't
>hold--the theory of Indo-European invasions in no way depends on any
>theory about what the pre-Indo-European culture was like.

I agree completely. The "Kurgan invasion" hypothesis is controversial,
but is at least arguable in a satisfactory way. It may possibly be true,
although it is far from certain. There are excellent arguments against
it, as well, as given by Mallory and others.

My purpose for including this is to make the reader aware that even
the "Kurgan invasion" hypothesis, which Gimbutas presents as unquestioned
fact, is not so. And since it is a pillar of the "Idyllic Goddess" claims,
we should note that this pillar is a wobbly one.

-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!


     "Mystical explanations are considered deep. The truth is that
      they are not even superficial."

                   - Friedrich Nietzsche    (The Gay Science: 126)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Mysogynist Bullshit
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 04:59:20 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.171309.17092@llyene.jpl.nasa.gov> julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas) writes:
>In article <1hshirINNh85@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> axb39@po.CWRU.Edu (Ann Burlingham) writes:
>>
>>>Curiously, women seek medical aid more often than men, even excluding
>>>gyn/obs visits. It may be true that women have more capacity for endurance,
>>>but in practice, it would seem that they do not use it. Kinda makes one
>>>wonder.
>>
>>I don't see the logic here. Maybe it's like the "women have to be twice as
>>good as men to be thought half so" thing - how do you know women aren't
>>enduring more? Checked any domestic violence (i.e., long-term sustained
>>endurance) statistics lately? 
>>
>
>I think it's exactly that -- women have to be twice as sick to be taken
>seriously.  

You are saying that they go more often because they do not get treatment?

>                 Of course, once you're that ill treatment is much harder
>and takes longer.  Science News reported on a study that showed women
>were much less likely to get needed medicines and sugeries for heart
>problems.  

I recall that article. But I doubt that most women, most of the time see
the doctor because of heart problems. And the study I read (also in
_Science_News_ as I recall, showed a significant difference in the number
of visits. Something like 30% more, although I do not recall clearly.

>         Many doctors brushed off women's complaints until they became
>very serious.  Women are more likely to die in heart surgery primarily
>because their health at the time is much worse than men undergoing
>the surgery.  The reason that their health was so bad was because 
>they had to wait longer before a doctor would operate.

Are you willing (and able) to extend this specific case generally?
BTW, as I recall, women are still much less likely to have heart problems.
 
>Julie
>DISCLAIMER:  All opinions here belong to my cat and no one else


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Xref: sparky alt.feminism:6535 soc.men:21801 soc.women:21909
From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Date: 24 Dec 92 08:42:21 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Dec23.180040.9600@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes:
>
>>Now whether you, or muffy, or NOW, or Senator Biden makes violence against
>>women "your issue" is beside the point.  I agree (if that is the point
>>you are making) that it doesn't mean that that you think that violence
>>against men is unimportant.  But if "your issue" is the only one that
>>society perceives, that says something, don't you think?

>I don't think society ignores other kinds of violence.  When I watch
>the local news at night, the first ten minutes is usually all about
>male on male violence.  It's true; no one uses the code words "Violence
>against men," but I would say the issue gets lots of media attention.
>By contrast, maybe once every couple of weeks, they mention "Violence
>agaisnt women" (always in a story about domestic abuse).  

>I guess what I'm saying here, is when we talk about "violence" in general,
>we are *usually* talking about male violence.  

>Basically, what we have here, I'm beginning to think, is another 
>manifestation of the whole problem where "generic human" equals "man".
>If you don't know the gender, it's "he", you know.  The sign on the
>men's bathroom door is the totally *ungendered* gingerbread "boy" 
>cut-out.  And "violence", with no modifiers, is generally about men.
>"Men" is usually the default value.  

>It's funny.  The Chicago Tribune has a section called "Woman News."
>I guess that's the stuff that isn't really relevant to the generic
>news (men's?) section.  Hmm. 

Sure, they have a men's news section -- they call it the sports section.

Your points are all very good and are well taken.  All that is left is
the interpretation.  Suppose we summarize it this way:

Violence is news -- it is interesting, it sells books, and plays, and
movies.

Normal violence is male/male.  People may go to jail as a result, or
die, or be crippled for life, but it's normal.  It doesn't require any
special comment.

Male/female violence is perverted.  It's abnormal and sick.  Domestic
male/female violence is really perverted.

Female/male violence is amusing.  It is something to joke about, but
it isn't real.

Female/female violence doesn't exist.

I'm not saying it's good, I'm just summarizing social attitudes as I
see them.

-- 
Richard Harter: SMDS Inc.  Net address: rh@smds.com Phone: 508-369-7398 
US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742.    Fax: 508-369-8272
In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Damned Souls (was Re: Version Five)
Date: 3 Jan 93 08:10:04 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

In article <C08roy.JFG@news.cso.uiuc.edu> 
levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:

>The government of Alabama was ordered to institute a *temporary* policy
>of affirmative action, to amend for previous discrimination. 

"*temporary*"?!

Look Lenore, affirmative action started more than 20 years ago as
a temporary solution, and today we have all the young (and old) 
women who demand affirmative action for themselves.

I think that the word "temporary" has been used to reduce men's
resistance, but the people who have pushed affirmative action
think that "temporary" is something like 3,000 years.

>>Most employers and most schools ask all applicants to fill out
>>affirmative action when they apply.  In those forms one has to 
>>tell about his/her race and sex.  I'm a little surprised that
>>your school has not asked you to fill out any.

>My gender is obvious from my name. My race is Caucasian, which would not
>grant me any affirmative action preference. 

If everybody would refuse to fill up affirmative action forms, then
the bean counters will have a much harder time enforcing schools
to accept more women and/or minorities.

It is your choice if you want to cooperate with the system or not,
but cooperating with the system, and being sure that you are/were/will
be accepted on your own merits, seems to me a little contradictory.

>Lenore Levine

Hillel                                                gazit@cs.duke.edu

"Y'know .. REAL equality, REAL paybacks to women for being turned into
what they are by society would involve switching places and making men
the 2nd class citizens for the next 3000 years or so."  --  Jeanette Dravk
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Violence
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 16:50:58 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.180039.29508@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael) writes:
>>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>jean@cs.cornell.edu (Jean M. Petrosino) writes:
>
>>>>                                        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.
>
>>>Yes, when women are angry, their anger is valid. But when men voice their
>>>anger, they are misdirected. This explains a lot.
>
>>That is not what she just said.  But I suppose its easy to make fun of
>>someone just after you stuff words in their mouth.
>
>Whaaaattt?  *Rich*?  Rich misconstrue something somebody said just so that
>he could piss on it???????  Nooooo.  Tell me it isn't so!  

And a Merry Christmas to you too rini. One of these days, you will have to
actually back up one of your silly little claims. You may find this hard
to believe, but rhetoric, no matter how prosaic, is not sufficient.

And as for "misconstrue[ing] something somebody said just so that [s]he could 
piss on it", I'd say you do not give yourself anywhere near enough credit.
In fact, you are in a state of denial when your postings are at issue.
 
>rini


Rich

payner@netcom.com


P.S. You forgot to call me a liar, next post will do fine. :^)
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center
Date: Sunday, 27 Dec 1992 11:46:39 EST
From: <JPWJJ@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject:    NY M ISO FEMINIST CORRESPONDENTS WHO HAVE READ BUKOWSKI

I am seeking insightful feminist E-Mail pen pals who have read Bukowski.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Why I am Not An Egalitarian
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 03:06:06 GMT

In article <C056zA.FAu@news.cso.uiuc.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>
>>It seems to me that you spend a great deal of time defining things in
>>terms of classes, and have shown little interest in dropping the class
>>distinctions and looking at every case individually.
>
>But isn't part of looking at individual cases developing an intuition
>about the individual, instead of going strictly by paper qualifications?

Who specified ONLY PAPER QUALIFICATIONS? I have repeatedly stated that a
short session at the blackboard will tell far more about qualifications,
and a few questions will easily determine knowledge.

Why you have a fixation on "paper qualifications" is beyond me.

And your use of the word "intuition" makes me nervous. It's a female,
non-objective thing.
 
>And part of such an intution may be an *individual's* history of
>overcoming adversity. 

A history which will end the moment you give brownie points and differential
treatment. And you have yet to show that there is a single demonstrated
professional advantage.
 
>Note that I am in favor of affirmative action in terms of groups
>only in limited and extreme circumstances; (which have to be
>a lot more extreme for government than for private institutions).

Feminists yell loud and clear that -any- such differential treatment
(not in a womans favor) is WRONG. A few feminists even say that any
such differential treatment at all is wrong. You have drawn non-extreme
lines which seem to contradict the above. 
 
>I am, particularly, not in favor of *automatic* preference to women
>and minorities in public university admissions programs.

But I wonder what you would do if given the power to make such PC acceptable 
selection preferances? I suspect (from reading all your posts) that
given the opportunity, you would give preferences based upon race and sex,
after all, you -define- those poor opressed souls as disadvanteged, and
those opressor white males with all the advantages will have no problem
getting a job as a corporate executive elsewhere, right? It's about time 
that they learn to overcome disadvantages. Too bad noone cares if they
have, even if all their lives.

>Lenore Levine


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Damned Souls (was Re: Version Five)
Summary: The alt.feminism edition.
Date: 31 Dec 92 20:56:07 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: Living In Harmony

In article <BzzF4s.HvA@news.cso.uiuc.edu> 
levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:

>The first young man was not a good communicator and did not present his
>case very well; he also had some very questionable philosophical
>positions. Nevertheless his case had some merit; I've known sexual
>users and predators of both genders myself, and the games they
>play can be quite horrible. But a lot of people jumped on this young
>man. Now, I remember you as *defending* him. Was I wrong?

I mostly stated out of that debate.  The only thing that seemed to me
*dirty* was his decision to fire a secretary who slept with Frenando.
("The girl had to go..."), and I asked for an explanation why.  He has
never answered that question.

>>It certainly happens, and the Old Boys can get away with that, because
>>the deal you (liberals and feminists) offered to them.  Affirmative 
>>action is a deal that tells them "hire enough women and minorities
>>and then nobody will be able to sue you about discrimination."

>>They took the deal, and that was dirty act on their part.

>>You offered the deal, and defended it for 20 years as "equality,"
>>and this is even a dirtier act your part.

>You are talking about the actions and positions of other people.
>I can't necessarily defend them; 

But that's what you do - you are the one who defends 
affirmative action all over the net.  

>>>Let me add -- that as a middle-aged curmudgeon, I think my chances of 
>>>being hired as anyone's token are slimmer than a snowball's in hell.
>>>(Not to worry though; I suspect I'll do just fine on my own merits.)

>>Don't be so sure on both counts.

>Of what? That my merits will be paid attention to, or that I have
>merit?

If you can be classified as "disabled" then it will be worth to hire
you even if you have no merit - you'll close two affirmative action
slots, and so they will be to hire other people that they really want.

Anyway, if you want to check how will you do on your own merit (fat
chance...) then you can refuse to fill up the affirmative action forms.
This way it will be worth to hire you only if the employer
really needs you.

>Lenore Levine

Hillel                                               gazit@cs.duke.edu

"There's never time to do it right, but there's always time to do it over."
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: elvis@netcom.com ('kEvin')
Subject: A Proposal
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 22:29:07 GMT

here it is:

NEVER crosspost between soc.men, soc.women, alt.feminism, etc.



If the article is of interest to several groups which are likely
to pursue different aspects of the original post, post it separately
to each group. Soc.men, which I read, has been inundated with crossposts
from alt.feminism that all followed up a few posts that were relevant
to both groups. Most of this traffic is only germane to alt.feminism.

I realize that this will use more filespace, but it will improve the
readibility of the soc.* groups immensely.


kEvin
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women,soc.men
From: levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine)
Subject: Re: Sophie Germain - Gender Differences
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 18:53:38 GMT

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:

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

>>>>For these reasons, I am in favor of institutions like Mills College's
>>>>summer research program in mathematics, for talented female
>>>>undergraduates. I just wish more such programs were available, and
>>>>available to other individuals of nonstandard backgrounds.

Rich:
>>>It's only sexism if it's to the advantage of white males, I keep forgetting.
>>>Do you imagine that a "summer research program in mathematics, for talented"
>>>male "undergraduates" would be well recieved or precieved as non-sexist?
>>>I suspect women everywhere would be in an uproar.

Lenore:
>>The only reason I am in favor of programs like the Mills College
>>program, is because in the current culture, *many* women have obstacles
>>to overcome in entering mathematics. If this were not the case, I
>>would not be in favor of such a program. 

Rich:
>There is a distinct difference between removing the barriers and
>-allowing- women the option and the present system of offering aid
>and condoning differential treatment based upon sex.

Lenore: 
>>You have a point, though, that these programs should be geared more
>>towards helping *individuals* who have a history of cultural obstacles,
>>not members of specific *groups*.

Rich:
>How about -any- individual who shows talent and desire? I do not believe 
>that you can seperate "cultural obstacles" and "members of specific *groups*".

>Rich
>payner@netcom.com

Of course, any individual who shows talent and desire to do research
mathematics should be encouraged and supported. I do think it is
particularly important to support individuals whose background shows
a history of overcoming obstacles. For example, it would be much
harder for an individual coming from the rural poverty culture
overromanticized in the Ma and Pa Kettle movies, to become a research
mathematician, than an individual whose father is a professor at
Stanford. Think of all the obstacles the first person would have to
face: in not getting a very good high school education, in assumptions
about them because of their background, in having to work their way
through college, etc. I think, for these reasons, that it would be
appropriate to throw some extra support the way of the first person.

Since women do, in our culture (for the most part), face some extra 
obstacles, I do think the Mills College program is ethical and appropriate. 
You are right that it may not be so at some future time. 

I only wish that there was a *similar* program, available for *all*
individuals whose personal history shows that they have overcome
obstacles. (It is certainly true, that Joe Kettle may have faced
more obstacles than Wendy Rockefeller...)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Organization: NEC America, Advanced Switching Laboratory
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 19:21:33 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.185729.13024@m5.harvard.edu> borden@m5.harvard.edu writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.162502.6756@asl.dl.nec.com> dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff) writes:
>
>>Unlike heterosexuality, which is dictated by nature, homosexuality
>>is a lifestyle choice and should not be presented as such to school
>>children.
>
>Incorrect, as well as irrelevant.

In your opinion.

The point is, I don't want someone teaching my children values that
do not reflect the christian values that this country was founded on.
-- 
Doug Dillhoff            Any opinions expressed are strictly my own.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12045 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10538