HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: Hooray!!
Date: 16 Dec 92 17:48:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: glia.michael.724528100
Organization: University of Washington

This isn't strictly part of the thread, but I'm just interjecting a comment.

In <1992Dec16.070854.23893@netcom.com> tyger@netcom.com (Kristen Kohlbecker) writes:
>I'm not sure why you're asking me for forgiveness, even sarcastically. Events
>being what they have for me these past couple of years, I have learned the 
>value of the occasional Good Hard Cry. There is absolutely *nothing* wrong
>with crying. Now *there* is something I can relate to quite easily. For as
>long as I can remember, I rarely cried, even when chased about the house by 
>my drunk father. He had raised me to believe that crying was for the weak, a 
>sign of weakness to be exploited. Then, not long before my 20th birthday, I
>learned that I was pregnant. I left the doctor, walked back to my dorm room,
>and rather handily made up for my years of silence. I didn't even bother to 
>try and compose myself for the call to my dad. Since then, I came to the
>realization that crying and showing emotions is definitely okay, and it is the
>*suppression* of emotion that is unhealthy. 

I too have learned that.  Crying is actually a path to strength rather
than a sign of weakness.  Its just *percieved* as weakness in our
culture and *treated* as such.  Those of us who recognize that its
unhealthy to hold our emotions in that degree of check, who understand
that releasing the emotions allows one to come to terms with a problem
and deal with it more easily, and who have learned that you can cry
and still be strong will be better off than those who don't and can't.
A good cry is no better or worse than a good creams or angry yell.
You do it, you release the feelings, and you move on.

And as that one former male said...  He's crying a lot after not for
40 years.  I'm not surprised at all.  He's got a lot of catching up to
do.

    Michael Stanley (michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine)
Subject: Re: Mysogynist Bullshit
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 21:09:59 GMT

sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell) writes:

> And, how do I maintain an
> erection while I am raping someone?

...Unfortunately, this is not a problem for all male humans. 

(Read the rather graphic case reported in today's Chicago Tribune. It
unmade my whole day. :-( )
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Canada Massacre
Date: 12 Dec 92 20:06:16 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <MUFFY.92Dec11151736@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.215131.3024@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>In article <MUFFY.92Dec11102107@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>>In any case, Rich, if you're so concerned about violence in general
>>>getting attention, why are *you* spending time on the issue of violence
>>>against women?  Why not just ignore it and spend the time working
>>>against violence?
>
>>I'm more concerned with the differential perceptions of violence. This
>>perception drives our reactions. I honestly feel that violence against
>>women is a problem, but I do not feel that the current situation and
>>a solution have anything to do with each other.
>
>>>It's pretty amazing to me that people spend all this time trying to
>>>convince *other* people to change the set of issues they choose to focus
>>>on, rather than just working on those other issues themselves.  Why not
>>>just let everyone choose the issues they are concerned about?
>
>>I did, but you seem to have a problem with my choice. Or are you trying
>>to tell me that I chose the wrong issue to focus on?
>
>So, are you saying that you actually think it's just fine for people to
>give attention to, discuss, and work on the problem of violence against
>women?  If so, then why do you keep questioning it when they do so?

I see two costs to pursuing "violence against women". One is that this
will reduce funding and effort at reducing violence in general, and other
is that it looks like this effort will make an accusation of violence
(by a women against a man) more and more like a conviction. I wonder if
they handle violence where two women are involved the same way?

I am not sure that the actual benefits (if any) will justify the costs.
And I am not just talking monetary costs, but the societal and personal
costs.

>Muffy
>--
>
>Muffy Barkocy                      | ~Can you tell me how much bleeding/it
>muffy@mica.berkeley.edu            |  takes to fill a word with meaning and/
>"amorous inclinations"? Aha! I'm   |  how much how much death it takes/to give
>not "not straight," I'm *inclined*.|  a slogan breath?~ - Bruce Cockburn


Rich

payner@netcom.com
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Back Again To (Un)Father
Date: 16 Dec 1992 21:23:41 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu
Keywords: Two Legs Good, Three Legs Bad...

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:

>Would it be equally OK to for man to make such decisions for women?

What equivalent decisions would that be?
-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Subject: Re: Nasty E-Mail
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 20:16:41 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.111329.3814@mtu.edu> mrmach@mtu.edu writes:
>In article <1992Dec10.154145.29960@wam.umd.edu>, sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell) writes:
>>athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:
>>>Perhaps the women should start to post the e-mail addresses of the folks
>>>who ask the wannafuck questions of them.  Then we can bombard THEM with the
>>>areyououtofyourmind questions.
>>
>>	I agree.  I think the senders of such mail would be VERY
>>	embarrassed.  I could be wrong but I think it would stop
>>	them cold.
>
>    I'm not sure, but I think this could cause legal repercussions.
>With snail-mail, the letter becomes the property of the addressee, but I
>believe that this doesn't hold true with e-mail.
>
>    From what I understand, e-mail is copyrighted by the author.
>Reposting the message without their permission could call for a
>lawsuit.  A publicly humiliated person could resort to such measures.
>
>    Does anybody know one way or the other for sure?

One could *still* post the addresses of those who had sent such mail, without
the actual evidence.  'Natch, this would then become problematic in terms of
false accusations, but then, anybody with half a brain could "fake" an e-mail
to post, anyway.

Also, while the text may be copyrighted, I suspect one could quote *PARTS* of
it...
-- 
-- 
--
-- "TANSTAAFL"     Rich lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Canada Massacre
Date: 11 Dec 92 23:17:36 GMT
	<1992Dec11.171421.29022@netcom.com>
	<MUFFY.92Dec11102107@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<1992Dec11.215131.3024@netcom.com>
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: payner@netcom.com's message of Fri, 11 Dec 1992 21:51:31 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.215131.3024@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <MUFFY.92Dec11102107@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>In any case, Rich, if you're so concerned about violence in general
>>getting attention, why are *you* spending time on the issue of violence
>>against women?  Why not just ignore it and spend the time working
>>against violence?

>I'm more concerned with the differential perceptions of violence. This
>perception drives our reactions. I honestly feel that violence against
>women is a problem, but I do not feel that the current situation and
>a solution have anything to do with each other.

>>It's pretty amazing to me that people spend all this time trying to
>>convince *other* people to change the set of issues they choose to focus
>>on, rather than just working on those other issues themselves.  Why not
>>just let everyone choose the issues they are concerned about?

>I did, but you seem to have a problem with my choice. Or are you trying
>to tell me that I chose the wrong issue to focus on?

So, are you saying that you actually think it's just fine for people to
give attention to, discuss, and work on the problem of violence against
women?  If so, then why do you keep questioning it when they do so?

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                      | ~Can you tell me how much bleeding/it
muffy@mica.berkeley.edu            |  takes to fill a word with meaning and/
"amorous inclinations"? Aha! I'm   |  how much how much death it takes/to give
not "not straight," I'm *inclined*.|  a slogan breath?~ - Bruce Cockburn
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: jay@UUSERV.CC.UTAH.EDU (Jay Deuel)
Subject: Re: Discriminating Uni Faculties
Organization: University of Utah Computer Center
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 22:31:18 GMT

>>Would anyone care to post statistics about the most unevenly organised
>>faculties they know, in terms of numbers of women and men?  Here at the
>>University of Western Australia, Arts is 75% women, 25% men, while
>>Engineering is the exact opposite.  And most of the rest are close to
>>50/50.  Someone I talked to from Monash University in Victoria said that
>>this was not the case there, but couldn't prove it.  Does this sort of
>>separation still happen in other places?  Because this, IMHO, is one of
>>the few examples of a situation in which men can actually claim "men's
>>rights", meaning themselves being discriminated against - let's face it,
>>most of the time that phrase is just men whingeing because they're not
>>in control any more...
>>

"Men's rights", and "women's rights", should include the ability to choose 
the field that interests them!  It sounds like you're proposing that gender 
considerations should outweigh qualifications, or number of applicants from 
each [gender] group.  But you're not alone, many support Affirmative Action.
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:5960 soc.women:21425 soc.men:21102
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: Gender Differences - Sophie Germain
Date: 13 Dec 1992 01:21:22 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

<RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:

>in `white', i.e. Roman notation:
>How much is CXVIII times XI  ?

>Or would you rather solve it in non-white notation?
>How much is 118 times 11 ?

>The second problem is posed in the notation which is known in the
>West as Arabic notation but the notation is actually Indian.  It is
>known in the West as Arabic notation because it was the Arabs who
>brought it to the West from India.

Ahem!  Both Arabs and Indians are caucasian!


-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: CALLING ALL WOMEN..WHERE ARE YOU?
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:58:25 GMT

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:

>>>Oddly, the thread rini started in sci.skeptic (a gender neutral pronoun)
>>            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>is still occasionally getting activity.

>>To correct you for the second time, I did not start a thread in
>>sci.skeptic.

>I was correct the first time. 
 
>I recall you responded to a post which had sci.skeptic in the newsgroups
>line. It was your response that started the thread. That you did not see
>this is irrelevant to what happened.

Rich, I *responded* to a thread.  I did not "start" that thread.  I did
not bring up the topic at all.  This is a *fact*. 

>If you don't like this, edit the newsgroups line.
>
>It almost sounds like you feel that since you were not there, you could
>not possibly have started a thread. 

No, I feel that since I did not initiate the topic, I could not have
possibly started a thread.

rini
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Candada Massacre
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 07:19:26 GMT

In article <Bz9n9v.BHp@newcastle.ac.uk> Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
>Historically (and in the present in many places), one of the
>reasons for domestic violence (among many) was that "the man
>of the household" felt that he owned his wife; he could do whatever
>he wanted with her, and punish her whenever she didn't obey him.
>Many people are still brought up with a trace of this attitude,
>even when they intellectually acknowledge some kind of equality
>of status.  When a man with such a background feels frustrated,
>for whatever reason, he can feel a tendency to lash out at some
>woman for not staying in her place.  Most men suppress such a
>reaction; some do not.  In this instance, women are singled out
>as targets.  Statistics about injuries tell very little about
>the motivations underlying them, and it is the latter that must
>be recognized if any solution is to be found.

I wonder about the stats, too.  My father was physically abusive to my
mother.  We'd see and hear the punches and then see the resulting
bruises on my mother, but the very few times my sister and I
confronted my father, he'd deny everything.  One time my mother hit
him back, catching her ring on his face and scratching him.  His face
started to bleed and he stopped.  I think he was so shocked that she
had hurt him that he was stopped dead in his tracks.

However, if you asked my father if he ever hit my mother, I bet he'd
say no and really believe it (particularly since he's no longer
abusive).  If you asked my mother if she ever hit my father, she'd
probably start to cry and tell about how she once hit him and made his
face bleed.

Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: CALLING ALL WOMEN..WHERE ARE YOU?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 04:31:36 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.004743.24190@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>
>>Actually, that thread -did- make it too my kill file, but the subject
>>line kept getting renamed. Today I started purging all the KILL files.
>>Oddly, the thread rini started in sci.skeptic (a gender neutral pronoun)
>            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>is still occasionally getting activity.
>
>To correct you for the second time, I did not start a thread in
>sci.skeptic.
>
>rini

I was correct the first time. 

I recall you responded to a post which had sci.skeptic in the newsgroups
line. It was your response that started the thread. That you did not see
this is irrelevant to what happened.

If you don't like this, edit the newsgroups line.

It almost sounds like you feel that since you were not there, you could
not possibly have started a thread. Likewise, neither could Dworkin or
MacKinnon have started threads in alt.feminism, since they do not post
here.



Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: CALLING ALL WOMEN..WHERE ARE YOU?
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 00:47:43 GMT

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:

>Actually, that thread -did- make it too my kill file, but the subject
>line kept getting renamed. Today I started purging all the KILL files.
>Oddly, the thread rini started in sci.skeptic (a gender neutral pronoun)
            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>is still occasionally getting activity.

To correct you for the second time, I did not start a thread in
sci.skeptic.

rini
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
From: michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael)
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 18:01:26 GMT

In <1992Dec19.075654.12282@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:

>In article <1gth7bINNcfi@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>dgross@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu (Dave Gross) writes:
>>>	"We men" are surrounded by violence from our circumcision in infancy
>>>(no anaesthesia, thank you) to being bullied in elementary school; from trying
>>>out for the football team in high school to registering for the draft; from
>>>being several times more likely than our sisters to be murdered to watching
>>>boxing on television; from visiting Arlington National Cemetery to running our
>>>fingers along the Vietnam War Memorial.
>>
>>[additional examples deleted]
>>
>>So this gives you the right to do violence unto others???

>	Now, that's what I call missing the point completely.
>	You just don't get it :-).
>						Kayembee

Actually as I understand it, her question attempts to relate what you said
to her original post.  If her question does not make sense, then you went
off on a tangent and started a new topic.

    Michael Stanley (michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu)
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,sci.skeptic,soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: Dr. Goldberg Replies to "Patriarchy" Debate
Date: 14 Dec 92 20:29:15 GMT
Organization: LLNL


	[Long Goldberg comments deleted...]

	I think that he's being unreasonable. He does not seem to have
taken the possibility of "equi-archy" or "ambi-archy" seriously, where
both sexes can have positions of responsibility or authority
seriously.

	Nor does he seem to have taken the criticisms made by Leacock
and others seriously. It looks as if the gender-roles question has
been a big blind spot in anthropology for some time -- not taking
women seriously enough -- and it is only in recent decades that it is
being corrected.

	And I have not seen a detailed (yes, _detailed_) critique of
Marija Gimbutas's work from him. Maybe he's afraid of being proven
wrong :-) One-liners about Minoan goddesses wielding what look like
double axes don't count.

-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
From: weirdo@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Katie Slekowetz)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Discriminating Uni Faculties
Date: 17 Dec 1992 02:34:14 GMT
Organization: The University of Western Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: tartarus.uwa.edu.au
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5


Would anyone care to post statistics about the most unevenly organised
faculties they know, in terms of numbers of women and men?  Here at the
University of Western Australia, Arts is 75% women, 25% men, while
Engineering is the exact opposite.  And most of the rest are close to
50/50.  Someone I talked to from Monash University in Victoria said that
this was not the case there, but couldn't prove it.  Does this sort of
separation still happen in other places?  Because this, IMHO, is one of
the few examples of a situation in which men can actually claim "men's
rights", meaning themselves being discriminated against - let's face it,
most of the time that phrase is just men whingeing because they're not
in control any more...

Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women,soc.men,talk.philosophy.misc
From: quilty@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Humberto Humbertoldi)
Subject: Re: Arab preservation of "european" thought
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 17:38:49 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.071243.23576@smds.com> rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes:
>In article <Bz10nC.Du3@nic.umass.edu> quilty@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Humberto Humbertoldi) writes:

>>	The case with the Greeks is much clearer than with Virgil and
>>other Romans, however.  There was some preservation of the traditions
>>of Roman philosophy in Medieval Europe -- but quite literally NONE of
>>Classical Greek thought (and by this I roughly include the wide area
>>of Greek contact:  Phonecia, Egypt, Palestine, and elsewhere).  In
>>1000 A.D. there was quite literally not ONE LIVING EUROPEAN who knew
>>the classical Greek language! Both the language and the texts of
>>classical Greece were preserved only by Arab scholars.
>
>Er, I find this rather hard to credit.  Greek was the language of
>the Byzantine Empire which maintained political and cultural continuity
>from 570 A. D. to 1453 A. D.  In point of fact the Arab scholars got
>a lot of their material from Byzantium.

Well, the Greek language in 570 A.D. (let alone 1453 A.D.) is a very
different thing than the "Greek" language in 350 B.C. (try reading
Chaucer, and that's only about 2/3 as much time difference).  But you
may well be right about the preservation of the "Greek" language in
the Byzantine empire.

>Now if you mean to say that there was no one in Western Europe (which
>one is usually referring to by "Medieval Europe") you have a case,
>although "literally not one" is almost certainly an exageration.
>After all, there was a small amount of intercourse between the
>"barbaric West" and "civilized East" -- Rome and Byzantium did maintain
>relations until 1054.

I should have written more clearly... I was a little wrapped up in
waxing poetic about the Arab influence... but I still really do think
that the importation of Greek antiquity to Western Europe took
predominantly the western path through Iberia.

-- 
    _/_/_/_/ THIS MESSAGE WAS BROUGHT TO YOU BY: Postmodern Enterprises _/_/_/ 
   _/_/      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  _/_/ 
  _/_/  The opinions expressed here must be those of my employer...     _/_/ 
 _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ Surely you don't think that *I* believe them!  _/_/ 
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:6219 soc.men:21384 soc.women:21632
From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Why are many low-income women fat? (was Re: Separate but Equal?)
Date: 13 Dec 1992 05:12:36 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
NNTP-Posting-Host: zion.berkeley.edu

>>How about the misconception that fat people are healthy? 
>
>Hmm.  Can't say that I've run across that generalization.

This is not a misconception.  The idea is that most
types of health problems result in significant loss of
weight (e.g. degenerative diseases such as cancer).

So therefore, on average, fat people as a group are
in better health than those of normal or low weight.

However: a given individual is healthier not being fat.


Steve

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: I'm So Confused
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 22:50:58 GMT

sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>st890674@pip.cc.brandeis.edu writes:

>>Having a man find you attractive should not entail being sexually harassed.  
>>"Nice tits (ass, etc.) is not an example of someone trying to tell you you're
>>attractive, but trying to tell you "I have power over you, to demean you
>>and humiliate you."  You aren't confused at all: you recognized the 
>>difference
>>between a sex object and being found attractive by men, and you're right.
 
>On the other hand, *some* women really get turned on by a man telling 
>them things like this. (Of course, it has to be the right man: if she
>thinks the guy is neat, she'll appreciate it; if not, she'll get
>mad.) But how is the poor guy to know what reaction the woman will have
>(arousal or anger) before he tries it?

Well, I would tell the poor guy that it is probably a good idea to get
know a person a bit before you try the "nice tits" line.  That's a good
way to find out what her tastes are.

rini
Newsgroups: alt.feminism