HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sobleski@sol4.cs.psu.edu (Mark Sobolewski)
Subject: Re: The Politics Of Appeasement
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: Penn State Computer Science
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 05:45:38 GMT

farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes (sarcastically?):
>You know it, dude.  I hear it comes from the fact that black slaves
>were bred for their muscles and not their brains.  Therefore, we have
>black athletes and not black scientists.  Why, the unemployment
>figures among black men alone just prove how inferior their genetics
>are.  And President Bush just proves how superior those WASP genetics
>are.

Hello all!  From the pc-incorrect east coast, that's exactly what many people
may be starting to think.  After affirmative action, welfare, and all
those other liberal programs _guaranteed_ to lift people out of poverty
they still haven't made it.  Yet "women and minorities" still can't seem
to feed their own children without welfare and child-support despite
having high paying jobs handed to them.

If these people aren't morally and mentally inferior, then what is the cause?

It's sad to say, but the cause is probably the liberal programs intended to
"help" them.  But rather than build blacks up, liberal programs have only
promoted irresponsibility and attacked their credibility before they
had a chance to build it.  Who _have_ these programs benefitted?
White female yuppies that can't be bothered to live in single income homes
with only 1 BMW in the garage.  But since Willie isn't going to blame
Hillary for that, he'll do the good wasp thing and shift the blame to
the poor while crying how much he cares about them.  At least Georgie is
honest enough to admit he _doesn't_ care about anyone but himself...

Just keeping a hand in...


-- 
Mark Sobolewski   sobleski@cs.psu.edu    *!psuvax1!sobleski
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: CENG51@maccvm.corp.mot.com (Craig Witkowski)
Subject: Re: Oscillators (Was: Re: Women in groups)
Organization: Motorola
Date: 16 Oct 1992 07:28:51 CDT

------------------------- Original Article -------------------------
In article <1992Oct15.164342.4056@midway.uchicago.edu>, pynq@quads.uchicago.edu
|> In article <1992Oct12.230913.19059@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mo
|>
|> >I tend to think of it as a simple case of 'injection locking' - a technical
|> >term for how two oscillators, running at the same frequency, will tend to
|> >oscillate at the same frequency given any means of coupling.  Rather than
|>
|> I don't get it.  If the oscillators are (already) running at the same
|> frequency, why do you need coupling to make them run at the same
|> frequency?

Did any of you sleep when they defined the word `phase'?

---
YuNoHoo	 "then he retired, waiting for someone to write `polarization'"

------------------------------ Comment -------------------------
I guess there's a new meaning for the "P" in PLL! (was phased lock loop) 8^)
                                      ^^^

Craig Witkowski, CENG51@maccvm.corp.mot.com
Motorola Communications & Electronics Inc.
Glen Rock,  NJ

Let's Go Racin'!
**********************************************************************
*                                                                    *
*         **   **  ***     ********   ********  ***      ******      *
*        ***  **  ****      **   **  **    **  ****     **   **      *
*       ** * **  ** **       **     **        ** **    *******       *
*      **  ***  ******   **   **   **    **  ******   **   **        *
*     **   **  **   **  ********  ********  **   **  **     **       *
*                                                                    *
**********************************************************************
                     AMERICA'S ULTIMATE MOTORSPORT!
From: sam@hpsad.sad.hp.com (Vicky Hansen)
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 20:22:42 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: Why reproduce? (was: Re: Another Irate Dad Kills)
Organization: HP Signal Analysis Division - Rohnert Park, CA
Newsgroups: soc.women

In soc.women, allanc@cs.su.oz.au (Restless Wanderer) writes:
   >I'm quite serious,I do NOT understand why anyone would want kids.
   >I'm serious with my question,and would appreciate some honest answers.

In case you are serious, I can put your thoughts in perspective:
  Why would anyone want to raise african voilets ?
  Why would anyone want a hermit crab as a pet ?
  Why would anyone want to use a nintendo ?
  Why would anyone want to fly airplanes knowing they fall out of the sky ?

If raising kids is not your piece of cake then hopefully you won't have any.
However, most of the bashing is not about raising kids -- it is about the
complex problem of doing so after the parents have decided they don't want
to live together any more.  I have absolutely *no* regrets on having 
children but I do have regrets about the father I picked out for them.
Xref: sparky soc.women:17766 soc.men:17768
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: An Old Male Fantasy that needs to pass
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com
Date: 15 Oct 92 09:54:15 GMT
 <1992Oct14.165939.21419@beaver.cs.washington.edu> 
 <1992Oct14.185806.12813@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> <1992Oct15.012950.11891@midway.uchicago.edu>
Organization: Electronic Data Systems, Unigraphics Division, Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: rivero

In article <1992Oct15.012950.11891@midway.uchicago.edu>, mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:
> martinjp@cs.washington.edu (John Martin) writes:
> 
>>When I was in jump school at Fort Benning, Ga...
> 
> [lots of stories about how women can't cut it in the military, deleted...]
> 
>>Perhaps women from other cultures may be successful in combat but I do
>>not think American women have what it takes, physically and mentally 
>>(emotionally?). Generally speaking of course :)
> 
> Now, John, I'm absolutely sure we could come up with at least as
> many personal accounts of how men (generally speaking of course) 
> make lousy parents.  Should we thereby conclude that American men
> do not have what it takes to be good parents (physically, mentally
> and emtionally)?  Perhaps then we should insist that mothers should
> always be awarded custody then, because of these broad generalizations.
> Does that sort of argument make sense to you?  

  For every encounter where you show that a man has made a lousy parent,
I will show two where the mother is the lousy parent.

  Were people to really study the actual incidence of bad parenting, as 
measured by physical abuse of children and outright killing of them, it would
be seen than men are by far the safer parent to leave the children with.
Children are far less likely to be beaten or killed by their fathers than
by their mothers ( references available by email).

  Perhaps this is why women must resort to false allegations of sexual
misconduct in order to win custody of their children?


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com  "Middle-aged Mutant Ninja Animator" |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|  "The great masses of people. . .will more easily fall                 |
|  victims to a big lie than to a small one."                            |
|                                          --Adolf Hitler                |
|                                                                        |
|   "All men are potential rapists, and that's _all_ they are!"          |
|                                 -- Susan Brownmiller                   |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism
From: nadel@attatash.aero.org (Miriam Nadel)
Subject: Re: Mattel and math avoidance in girls
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 18:44:36 GMT

In article <Bvv45H.6zJ@news.cso.uiuc.edu> parker@eehp3 (Robert Scott Parker) writes:
>Girls are given toys (such as Barbie dolls) that involve appearances and social
>interaction, rather than intellectual exercizing.  

Actually, I think dolls, including Barbie, are generally good toys.  Yes, one
way to play with them is to have a group of girls together dressing them up,
but it is also possible to do what I did just as often as a child which is
to use the dolls as actors in your stories.  There weren't a lot of kids my
age in my neighborhood and it was often easier to play "let's pretend" with
Barbie than to go all the way across town to someone else's house.  

It was that which made me like Barbie et.al. much better than the other sort
of dolls which were available, which were primarily baby dolls.  What could
you do with a baby doll?  Barbie, though, could be a doctor, a race car
driver, a spy, a pirate, etc..

Of course, there is the time I cut open Bendable Posable Skipper's leg to
see how the knee joint worked.  

Perhaps the issue is how you play with the toys, not what the toys are?

Miriam Nadel
From: mlemmerm@nl.oracle.com (Mick Lemmerman Publisher)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Help! I need romantic ideas.
Date: 8 Oct 92 15:45:42 GMT
Reply-To: mlemmerm@oracle.nl (Mick Lemmerman Publisher)
Organization: Oracle Europe

In article <1aqsqgINN30s@gap.caltech.edu| peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
|cannon@scs.unt.edu (Dustin Cannon (Lab 3460)) writes:
||I was wondering if you had any other little 
||romantic things I could do that would make my SO think I am the most 
||romantic guy ever!  I'm just a college student, so nothing too expensive.  
|
|Pack a picnic basket and take her to the park.  Feed the ducks and 
|watch the children play.  Ask her about the shapes she sees in the 
|clouds.

	Yeah, and then she'll ask me what I've been smoking.
|
|Wake her up in the middle of the night when the air is warm and 
|go for a walk in the moonlight.

	Wake her up in the middle of the night? Come on, she
	is NOT going to appreciate that.

Sorry to be such a cynic, and I'm not generalizing here. I just imagined
trying out some of these things with my girlfriend, and that brought a
smile to my face.

On a slightly more serious note, what do you think of the sterotypical romantic
things like flowers, candlelit dinners, and stuff like that? I was 
accused of being unromantic in the past because I couldn't bring myself to 
conform to the romance-novel/hollywood-mini-series idea of what is romantic.
It seemed so cliche'ed, following a set formula: "this is generally considered 
romantic, so I'll do this". Instead I wanted it to come more from the heart,
to be more original. 

But, but, but, my (then) girlfriend really did like the things I tried to 
avoid. If being romantic is something you share, then you should both enjoy it
for similar reasons. Or, does it not matter what you think of it as long
as your partner appreciates it? If you go for the latter, then you perceive
being romantic as the giving of a present (i.e. "You're happy I did this,
and I'm happy because you're happy".)

Maybe I worry too much
Xref: sparky soc.women:17712 soc.men:17719 alt.politics.homosexuality:6438
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Now we are getting towards the Issue
Date: 14 Oct 92 14:05:43 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

Graydon <SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
] 
] The *social* consequences of a bunch of women who can fight, for real,
] are what the (innately conservative) military is trying to avoid.
] It isn't going to work for much longer, unless we have a tech level
] collapse.
] 
] Graydon

Well the military has, slowly but surely, resolved a few
of the social complications.....

1. There is a maternity uniform, and the navy, faced with 
the Poicy that it would not allow day care service provides
to be certified to watch children less than six weeks old,
Opted to solve the Problem By putting women on Convolescent 
leave till week six.

2. Few of the Division Officer's Pages have the line
'wife' in it where 'spouse' should be!
{ask me, I was one of the Navy's Male 'wife units' for a while.}

3. Folks are learning You do not date a Shipmate....
{I am old fashion, I suggest never being involved
with anyone you will have to debrief.}

4. The Myth that women Nurture crumbles the first time a
boot camper male makes a Stoopid near a Female DI.....
{Novelty of novelty, women are also learning to 
buck up as boot campers as well....}

5. The Myth that Males do Not Provide Nurturing
and support is no longer shrouded in angst about
being some sort of 'faggot.' Some are, some are not.

So what is left?

ciao
drieux






-- 
Modern Day Problems:
In any case, don't give up, just type slower :-).
Chimo
Bob.
Xref: sparky soc.women:17635 soc.men:17646 alt.feminism:2478
From: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Affirmative Action
Date: 13 Oct 92 01:31:06 GMT
Reply-To: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Followup-To: soc.women
Distribution: usa
Organization: Florida State University, but I don't speak for them

In article <1992Oct12.174104.3490@tellab5.tellabs.com> chrz@tellabs.com (Peter Chrzanowski) writes:
>I'd just like to remark that teenage boys can find it very difficult to
>get babysitting jobs, even if they are interested in doing this work.
>The reason seems to be that many parents are convinced that boys are
>more likely to abuse their children than girls.

I'd also like to point out that this has not always been the case.  Twenty
years ago in New York City it was not uncommon for boys to make a few bucks
babysitting.  

Good thing we raised everybody's consciousness about how bad sexism is.

-EMP
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism
From: chrz@tellabs.com (Peter Chrzanowski)
Subject: Re: Affirmative Action
Organization: Tellabs, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 17:41:04 GMT

In article <Bvu5B4.5MC@cs.psu.edu>, beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
> In article <1b24h8INNonl@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
> >beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
> >
> >>>One of the saddest things about modern society is that in our mobile
> >>>nuclear families the kids grow up without little siblings and cousins
> >>>and neighbors kids, and they never get much opportunity to interact
> >>>with children (practice parenting) until they bear their own.
> >
> >>Yes.  I'd also point out that role models are very important.  As long
> >>as our biased system continues to produce seven times more single-mothered 
> >>families than single-fathered families, and continues to put greater 
> >>pressure on men to leave the home, kids are not going to learn by seeing,
> >>either.  
> >
> >You missed my point completely.  I said that kids should learn by
> >*doing*, not by *seeing*.  I don't think the gender of the primary
> >caretaker is nearly as important as whether the kid him/her/self
> >has the opportunity to do *hands-on* childcare of littler kids.
> 
> Oh, well in that case, I disagree.  I think that it is essential
> for each child to believe that his/her future will include taking
> care of children.  In a "traditional" setting, even if a boy helps his
> mom out (and dad is not around much), I have a feeling that his talents 
> may lie dormant later on.
> 

I'd just like to remark that teenage boys can find it very difficult to
get babysitting jobs, even if they are interested in doing this work.
The reason seems to be that many parents are convinced that boys are
more likely to abuse their children than girls.

No doubt many of these people would be outraged at the thought that
*their* employers discriminate on the basis of sex.
From: stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Challenge (was: Blowing Up Stereotypes)
Date: 16 Oct 92 22:57:01 GMT
Followup-To: soc.women
Organization: Murasami Labs

In article <7304@transfer.stratus.com>, Laurie Mann wrote:

> men who post here.  Why should I waste time/energy trying to discuss important  
> issues with men, when all they can do is bash women?  There was a time when I  
> was opposed on principle to the notion of soc.women.only, but no more.  It's  
> time to stop being "so nice."

*Applause* Lovely generalizations you make.

Anyway, to MY point:

I challenge you, Ms. Mann to create and moderate soc.women.only. Do the
required steps, call for votes. I'll even vote *for* it! But if and only
if you promise to be a moderator yourself for twelve (12) calendar months
after it's inception.

I'm calling yer bluff. Put up, or shut up.

James N. Stricherz [this is serious, so I'll give you my name]

Hell, I even promise not to challenge it in court!
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: falk@peregrine.Sun.COM (Ed Falk)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: types of "power"
Date: 15 Oct 92 19:17:03 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: peregrine

In article <1992Oct15.153316.14147@news.nd.edu> slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:
>
>Strange.....  A "virtually ostracized" woman getting elected president 
>of her NOW chapter.  What, you mean the other members didn't look at 
>her before they voted for her?  Or did she just walk into the meeting 
>and declare herself president? 

The politics of the time and place were complicated.  There were many
factions.  She was treated badly by the other radfems *after* she
became chapter president.  She was also the lobbiest for the state
chapter, and was later fired because of her personality clashes with
the other radfems.  The two male male members of the chapter were also
driven out, and for years the chapter was women-only.

>Or, could you possibly be saying that "radfems" did not dominate this 
>NOW chapter?  Or that "radfems" could move beyond whatever personal 
>prejudices they may have held with regards to "looks" and still 
>elect this woman their president?  Gee, what a great bunch of folks!

How she got to be president, I don't know, I wasn't there.  That she
was later treated badly by the other feminists, I *do* know.  I saw
it.  Things change.

		-ed falk, sun microsystems
		 sun!falk, falk@sun.com
To be loyal to rags, to shout for rags, to worship rags, to die for rags 
-- that is a loyalty of unreason, it is pure animal (Mark Twain).
Xref: sparky soc.women:17612 soc.men:17621
From: fy03+@andrew.cmu.edu (Francis J. Yenca)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Sexist? Dangerous?
Date: 17 Oct 92 00:43:04 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Anna writes:

>So who should I be angry at tonight while I grit my teeth?
>Should I be pissed at my random admirer, who made me feel good?
>Or should I be ticked at my roommate, who basically managed to
>mangle my whole day?

Enjoy the compliment, but don't let the roommate bother you.

She's just jealous.

Frank
From: colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: I be Afraid that I agree with you....
Summary: 90/10
Date: 8 Oct 92 18:06:56 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Oct7.225024.18190@midway.uchicago.edu>, mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:
> In article <1992Oct7.102157.2600@mdcbbs.com> 
> rivero@mdcbbs.com (Michael Rivero) writes:
> 
> >  That's a nice ideal, and one which is promoted during the conscription of
> >troops, i.e. you just push a button and the bad guys fall down. However, 
> >the history of WW2 and Korea is replete with decisive battles which ended
> >as hand-to-hand combat with knives after the ammunition ran out. 
>  
> >  As was the unfortnate case during the recent Los Angeles insurrection,
> >when women go up against men in a non-munitioned fight, they get
> >very dead, very quickly. The women who fought for the Soviets
> >during WW2 suffered excessive losses in situations where the machinery
> >was no longer running.
> >
> >  No military commander (certainly not one I want defending my country)
> >will put weaker soldiers into any situation which has any possability of
> >degrading into a hand-to-hand fight. 
> 
> I hope you're not suggesting that strong women who can fight should
> be kept out of battle....  
> 
> (I *thought* that's what all soldiers got out of boot camp... If not,
> something should be fixed *there*.) 
> 
> >  Women can make fine pilots and tank crews, but they are at a natural
> >disadvantage in a ground fight when the ammo runs out, the plane is shot down,
> >or the tank disabled.
> 
> So are short men.  So are men who wear glasses.  So are less intelligent
> people.  So?
> 
> rini

All this "all men" vs "all women" stuff is ridiculous.  Lets apply my
favorite rule - the 90/10 rule to this.

Let's say (for arguments sake) that 90% of all men are fit for combat
duty.  Let's also say (also for arguments sake) that 90% of women
are UNFIT for combat duty.  Now we all know that these numbers
are exagerated for effect, and that not all combat duty is equal.
BUT - lets say that these numbers are the ones we have to work with.
It still does not mean that women have to be kept out of battle.

What is means is that we have to make sure that the 10% of men, and
90% of women, who are unfit for combat don't wind up in there.
Any other consideration than that (women are nurturers, men are natural
killers, body strength, etc) is sexist.

marc colten
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Subject: Re: An Old Male Fantasy that needs to pass
Summary: speaking of fantasies...
Organization: QQQCLC
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 05:36:12 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.104534.2616@mdcbbs.com> rivero@mdcbbs.com (Michael Rivero) writes:
>Most people don't know it, but for a brief time there were
>female gladiators in Rome. This was a practice started by Nero to 
>"spice" up the games which quickly died out (along with the female contestants).
>The only Emperor to make it something worth wagering on was Domitian who 
>paired female gladiators armed with Thracian swords against male dwarves 
>armed with tridents.  Even the Roman masses thought it was silly and left to
>go watch the Lions versus Christians in the arena across the Appian Way.
>Females vanished from the arena in about 90 B.C. less than 20 years before
>Sparticus' revolt.

	Michael, Nero ruled over a century after 90 BCE, and Domitian
later yet. Do you make this up as you go along? Not that Roman
gladiators have a damn thing to do with modern warfare in any case.

						Kayembee
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: WOMEN ARE NOT PAYED LESS THAN MEN
From: alanb@sdl.mdcbbs.com (Alan Braggins)
Date: 07 Oct 92 17:29:51 GMT
Organization: Shape Data (Division of EDS), Cambridge UK
In-reply-to: debra@creatures.cs.vt.edu's message of 6 Oct 92 14:43:26 GMT

>>>>> On 6 Oct 92 14:43:26 GMT, debra@creatures.cs.vt.edu (Debra Potts) said:

> A warning:   Be very careful of ALL polls and statistics.  Look at the source,
> 	     learn a little bit about surveying methods and practices and be
> 	     very wary of the pitfalls of pop psychology and sociology.  It
> 	     is so easy to invalidate any poll or survey that it's almost
>   	     funny. 

A friend of mine likes to illlustrate this by quoting statistics that showed
that serious head injuries went up sharply when steel helmets were introduced
in the First World War.

The "obvious" conclusion, that wearing helmets was a bad idea, is wrong.
What was actually happening was that the statistics for "death" didn't
seperate head injuries out, and that what would have been a fatal injury
without the helmet was survivable (but still serious) with it.

--
     Alan Braggins, alanb@sdl.mdcbbs.com, abraggins@cix.compulink.co.uk
Shape Data - A division of EDS-Scicon Limited.   Cambridge, UK +44-223-316673
   "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
 "My employer does not necessarily share my views - but I'm working on it."