HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell)
Subject: Re: The White Feather Campaign
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 18:20:18 GMT

In article <Bzp7zu.GM1@nic.umass.edu> quilty@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Humberto Humbertoldi) writes:
>In article <1992Dec22.171402.13149@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>DPIROT@vm.ucs.UAlberta.CA writes:
>>>It is likely, judging from the lack of confirming evidence and from
>>>the opinions of aid workers in Bosnia that the reports are greatly
>>>exaggerated, that the stories have been made up in order to stir up
>>>sympathy for a Balkan war. 
>>
>>Hmm.  I don't know.  They had a thing about this on NBC Nightly
>>News last night.  They had a soldier who described in detail how
>>he raped ten women and killed six of them; how the Serbs run
>>'bordellos' filled with the female prisoners.  Both the rapes and
>>the murders, he claims, were committed 'under orders.' They also 
>>interviewed a young woman who was pregnant from being held captive 
>>in one of these 'bordellos'.  Didn't strike me as particularly 
>>ficticious.
>
>Hmmm... my assumption was always that NBC Nightly News is precisely a
>work of fiction.  Their sole purpose seems to be making up interesting
>stories which, if true, would serve the interests of the working
>class.  For those of you wondering why these stories of "rape camps"
>and all are being *FABRICATED* by the news media, I have but two
>words:  "Grosse Deutchland." 
>
>-- 
>    _/_/_/_/ 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!  _/_/ 

I dont see how the news serves the interest of the working class.
  Who has the money/power to manipulate the news, if it is done?

Anyway, I agree with you that the media shouldnt be taken without
a grain of salt.  Remember the old joke about a soviet and an american
sailor meeting at sea.  The soviet sailor says the only differnce between
the two is that he knows he is being lied to.

My opinion is that if these stories are propaganda, the slavs make such
interviews available and the std sleazy journalist, eager for a story
beyond all else gobbled up the bait the way their collegues did with
the irqui -soilder-babykiller stories

SFJR

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center
Date: Saturday, 26 Dec 1992 09:59:42 EST
From: <MIWHC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject:    Women DOCTORS

     I am looking for any sort of data/statistics on how patients feel about
women doctors. As yet, I have found nothing. I get the impression that both
older men and women prefer men doctors, middle-aged men prefer men doctors,
middle-aged women prefer women doctors and both younger men and younger
women prefer women doctors.
     These are only impressions I have received from speaking with various
women doctors about their patients. Obviously, the fact that women are finally
becoming doctors in much greater numbers must have something to do with this,
but I am more interested with the QUALITY of the medical care.
     It seems that the rate of malpractice suits are lower for women, but
again, I need data. I also get the impression from speaking with various
women dentists, physicians, optometrists and surgeons that women seem to be
much more concerned with the patient's fear, comfort, and general well-being,
while the male doctors I've spoken with seem to talk more about their
technique and various difficult cases. Again, no data.
     Thank You in Advance.

                                -- Michael Wofsey
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Boycotts (was Re: Why are many low-income women fat?)
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 18:26:02 GMT

In article <C08nKs.IK3@news.cso.uiuc.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
>gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:
>
>>In article <C058Cu.Fnv@news.cso.uiuc.edu> 
>>levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
>
>>>A clear definition works very well in more stable societies,
>>>but doesn't seem to work as well in more quickly changing
>>>societies. 
>
>>Has the changes, in your life time, been so quick?
>
>Hell, yes!!! (Of course, remember I'm 43 years old.) I don't think
>I would have believed, in 1960, that the culture would change
>as fast as it did.


	Please cite some examples.


>Me:
>>>I actually see the problem (or some great component of it) as
>>>television...
>
>Hillel:
>>Would you mind to elaborate?
>
>Television tends to inordinately increase the role that appearance
>plays in voting choices. For example, I doubt if Lincoln, Churchill or
>Roosevelt could have been elected today.


	I don't agree.  Let's look at our possibilities:

	1.  Bush--with his mottled wood-looking next and his
	now-sunken-bug-eyes and thinning hair, all in all,
	was not a pretty picture.

	2.  Clinton.  Overweight, postures like a TV preacher,
	narrow little beady eyes, and hair that is reminiscent
	of a grey kiwi fruit.  Not my ideal.

	3.  Ross.  Big ears, balding (but at least not that combed
	over balding look).  Would have been right at home in the
	Beverly Hillbillies, but at least he was cute.  

	Who won?  <When you bring in the alternates, those that were
	eliminated in the primaries, the "looks" issue becomes pretty
	frail>


>>>>In my opinion, part of "social justice" is reducing the power of the
>>>>government.  Do you reject this approach?  Can you give an example
>>>>where a powerful government stayed (more or less) "clean handed"?
>
>>>Hillel, can you give an example of any government which has
>>>stayed "clean handed"? 
>
>>\begin{sarcasm}
>>Feminists keep telling us about the "good" female-dominated societies
>>that were around 4,000-5,000 years ago; do you think that those 
>>societies had not "clean handed" governments?!
>>\end{sarcasm}
>
>Please do not attribute to me opinions I don't hold. 


	Hillel's comment:  And, it is becoming increasingly clear,
	that these societies never existed.

	Lenore's:  If you claim to be a feminist, people will associate
	the views of that group with you.  


> 


-- 
	Blaming "society" for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.

         ---  boycott == censorship == closed mindedness == cowardice  ---
		   	     Pain teaches.   <for mailing and other info, .plan>
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Date: 21 Dec 92 15:40:21
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1gth7bINNcfi@gap.caltech.edu> <BzM49A.5yx@world.std.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: aep@world.std.com's message of Mon, 21 Dec 1992 14:00:46 GMT

In article <BzM49A.5yx@world.std.com> aep@world.std.com (Andrew E Page) 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
>>So this gives you the right to do violence unto others???
>100%, completely off of the MARK!!

>The issue is not the right to comit violence at all!>The issue is that
>men are also the victims of violence.

No, the issue is that every time someone talks about the violence that
is practiced against women, some people here start shouting about the
violence that happens to men.  Not only do they not seem to want us to
work on the problem *we* are concerned about, but they further want us
to work on *their* problems.  No one has *denied* that men have
problems, those are simply not necessarily the problems that many
feminists are concerned about.  It is apparently more interesting to
advocates for men to attack anyone working on women's problems than to
*do* anything about the problems they are supposedly so concerned about.

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,misc.misc
From: quilty@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Humberto Humbertoldi)
Subject: Re:    Women DOCTORS
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 19:41:07 GMT

I think I want to disagree (most respectfully, however) with most of
this posters impressions about differences between women and men
doctors.  My feeling is that differences are very minimal, despite
certain feminist assumptions that they would be different.  The only
differences one would find, I believe, are those attributable to age
and era, rather than gender (male doctors are, statistically,
significantly older than female ones).
In article <92361.095942MIWHC@CUNYVM.BITNET> <MIWHC@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
>     I am looking for any sort of data/statistics on how patients feel about
>women doctors. As yet, I have found nothing. I get the impression that both
>older men and women prefer men doctors, middle-aged men prefer men doctors,
>middle-aged women prefer women doctors and both younger men and younger
>women prefer women doctors.

The above is interesting, and I too would be very interested in seeing
data on such things.

>     These are only impressions I have received from speaking with various
>women doctors about their patients. Obviously, the fact that women are finally
>becoming doctors in much greater numbers must have something to do with this,
>but I am more interested with the QUALITY of the medical care.
>     It seems that the rate of malpractice suits are lower for women, but
>again, I need data. I also get the impression from speaking with various
>women dentists, physicians, optometrists and surgeons that women seem to be
>much more concerned with the patient's fear, comfort, and general well-being,
>while the male doctors I've spoken with seem to talk more about their
>technique and various difficult cases. Again, no data.

This thing about greater concern with patients' fear, comfort, et alia
is something I've seen batted about in "difference feminism"
arguments.  The whole school of feminism -- dating back to turn of the
century suffrage and prohibition first-wave feminism -- which makes
arguments from womens' suppossedly more nurturing nature, assumes such
differences.  Then again, all the evidence I've seen presented
suggests that women who are doctors -- even ob/gyn where women are
suppossedly especially competent to understand patients' feelings --
run into all the same complaints and malpractice suits as do male
doctors.  Moreover, what I've seen suggests that malpractice suits
occur at entirely the same rate amongs female ob/gyn's (this is where
I've seen specific figures -- but my guess is it's the same in other
fields of medicine).  Well, anyway, I'm not sure what my point has
been, so perhaps I'll stop rambling now.
-- 
    _/_/_/_/ 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!  _/_/ 
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Working with Women vs. Working with Men
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 15:48:09 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.140445.17628@cs.cornell.edu> jean@cs.cornell.edu (Jean M. Petrosino) writes:
>
>Robert Stephen Rodgers sums it up in the following statements:
>	
>	"If women cannot tell the difference, well then--tough."
>
>(Thanks for making the effort to bridge the communication gap between women 
> men with this enlightening statement.)


	The effort has been made a number of times and failed.

	Frankly, I don't much care about having happy-fun communication--
	it's not the job we're supposed to be doing.


>	"...but your partner insists on PLAYING with a thesaurus
>	and PRETTYFYING all of what you're writing instead of aiding
>	the task at hand...After an hour or two, you're liable to
>	strangle them so that they'll SHUT UP long enough for you to
>	think."
>
>( I think your paralelling women with children who need to be (physically)  
>  shut up is a nice touch.)


	Come off it.  Is your reading level really that low?


>	to getting the job done."
>
>(...by your guidelines and time-table.)


	Well, since that's all there is (they seem unable to make
	guidelines or a timetable for themselves that they're willing to
	stick to--and this includes timetables made as a team) that's
	the way it'll have to be.


>	"It is *not* a power issue."
>
>(...that you are willing to  see, discuss, or begin to understand.)


	Ah, the cry of the pathetic.  "You don't understand"
	It is not my job to constantly make every effort to understand
	a group that refuses to be honest and up-front about what
	it is you're trying to do.  It is not *my* job to try and
	make efforts to understand and empathize a process that fails
	to get the job done.
-- 
	"If you can't eat sand, why the hell are you living in a desert?"
			Equality is a delusion.
	     Rule 1:  "Don't have more children than you can feed."
	  	  Nuclear redevelopment for a better world!
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine)
Subject: Re: Boycotts (was Re: Why are many low-income women fat?)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 16:41:43 GMT

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:

>In article <BzvzoM.Fn3@news.cso.uiuc.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
>>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>
>>>>>In many cases, these policies are a matter of public record. For
>>>>>example, in the case of the systems analyst, she was explicitly
>>>>>told by her contact at the employment agency that Sun would not
>>>>>hire her.
>>
>>>Just for the record, it is my understanding that Sun is not hiring
>>>-any- temporaries, at all, and this has been the policy for the last
>>>several years. This is unqualified, regardless of sex, height, or
>>>planet of origin, they will not hire any temps as permanant.
>>
>>>Even reading your text, I cannot see any implication of discrimination.
>>
>>The woman was considered for a permanent position at Sun; and she was
>>explicitly told, that people of a nonstandard weight would not be
>>considered for such positions.
>>
>>Yes, I think that's discrimination...
>>

>She was told this by the agency, not by Sun. And if it was within the
>last several years, Sun has not been hiring temps. And just for the
>record, I know an engineer at Sun who would probably not fit in the
>passenger seat of my Honda Civic. If this were company policy, he
>could not be working there.


>Rich

>payner@netcom.com

Once again, I don't know when this incident happened; and the woman was
not being considered as a temp. 

Are you curious enough for me to find out details?
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine)
Subject: Re: Boycotts (was Re: Why are many low-income women fat?)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 22:40:20 GMT

rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:

(Re boycott of companies that won't hire large people.)

>	I would probably advise you that you need to take such policies
>	in context.  For instance, I think it's in New York, a very obese
>	man is suing McDonalds for not providing a table that he can
>	fit into.  This man is enourmous--for McDonalds to provide
>	proper seating for this mans physique would require them to halve
>	(or less) the number of seats they can fitin their restaurants.
>	McDonalds can seat people from 30 to 350 lb folks pretty much 
>	fine.  

The companies I am referring to, implement these policies against
individuals who are at all over the weight tables. They would implement
them against me (average height and a size 20)!

>	That, one.  Two, I would suggest that you consider whether
>	these jobs are jobs that an obese individual can properly fill,
>	that is, look at the activity the job involves (physical
>	activity and safety, especially). 

Systems analyst? (A specific example related to me on the net.) 
Most of these jobs are highly technical positions...

 Third, take a look at the
>	work areas that the companies _have right now_ (I think it's
>	rediculous to make them rebuild) and make sure that those 
>	(and not bigotry) aren't the underlying reason.

How does someone my size need a special work area?

I think you are not cynical enough. These companies are not
discriminating against Andre the Giant type people, but against
Lech Walesa and Roseanne Barr type people.

(By the way, note the winter conditions faced by the ancestors
of these two individuals.) 
 
>	After all this, there are alternatives that are better than
>	boycotts.  Publicity, media.

>	Boycotts don't hurt anything but the employees of the company.

I am not sure whether the boycott I described would work. But I know
I would not knowingly buy products from a company that refused to hire
people my size.

Lenore Levine
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women,soc.men
From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Date: 22 Dec 92 08:07:45 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

In article <MUFFY.92Dec21154021@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

>>The issue is not the right to comit violence at all!>The issue is that
>>men are also the victims of violence.

>No, the issue is that every time someone talks about the violence that
>is practiced against women, some people here start shouting about the
>violence that happens to men.

Er, I think you're missing the essence of the matter.  Rightly or wrongly
there is a perception that "you" feel that violence against women is
intrinsically worse than violence against men.

For every woman that is the victim of violence there are three men that
are the victims of violence.  Since "we" see a special need for action
against violence against women, but not against men, the natural conclusion
is that "we" feel that violence against a woman is more than three times
as serious as violence against a man.

Do you not see that this sort of viewpoint is perceived as amounting to
saying, "Women are more important, more human than men.  Their hurts matter
more.  Women are entitled; men are not."

---

"We" and "you" are in quotes because I am referring to generic societal
attitudes, not to particular people.
-- 
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: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: The BEM Test
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 08:00:50 GMT

In article <BzzoAJ.Kwo@news.cso.uiuc.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
>On the back of scratch paper from a campus recycling area, I found a
>psychological test called the Bem Sex Role Inventory. This test lists
>sixty adjectives that refer to human beings, some "masculine," some
>"feminine," and some neutral (but you don't know which are which until
>
> [womens' terms: dependent. Mens': self-reliant]

>I urge you to draw your own conclusions from this test.

The conclusion is that psychologists have found the "sexist" terms you
quote to accurately describe the self-perceptions (on the average) of
women and men.

Didn't Wendy say that when she was still he, his doctor gave him such
a test to see whether he would be better off as a he or a she? Be
careful before you go off ranting and raving over such a test; it
may be extremely valuable to some people.

-- 
  
        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: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Why are many low-income women fat? (was Re: Separate but Equal?)
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 14:46:23 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.043733.21122@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>
>>levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
>>
>>>>Wonderful, I am happy for you. I am not fat, and also look a lot younger
>>>>than I am (it seems to be about 10-12 years, people often ask when I seem
>>>>too knowledgable and experienced my visual age, I have started asking for
>>>>their guess as a condition for an answer), so this looks more like a 
>>>>matter of genetics. I am curious as to wether it means that one will live
>>>>longer as well.
>>
>>	Hate to burst your bubble, but I wouldn't put too much 
>>	faith in this "I look younger than I am bit".  *Especially* 
>>	if such comments are coming from men.
>> 
>>	Early on, lesse--it must have been 13 or 14 for me--most
>>	men learn to li --*always*--to women about certain subjects.
>
>You should know that you fucked up the attributions and that your
>replies are to a man's text, not a woman's, as you assumed.


	BFD. 

>Furthermore, I guess I don't think much of the "all men are liars" tenet 
>you are putting forward here.  (Is that really the point you wanted to
>make?)


	How about, "all people are liars" and "all people demand that
	others lie"?
 
	Yep.  You bet your wazoo I believe that.  


-- 
	"If you can't eat sand, why the hell are you living in a desert?"

	     Rule 1:  "Don't have more children than you can feed."
	  	  Nuclear redevelopment for a better world!
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Boycotts (was Re: Why are many low-income women fat?)
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 18:48:46 GMT

In article <C04vHD.C55@news.cso.uiuc.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
>
>rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>
>
>>	Have *you* read it?  It simply lends more evidence to my point,
>>	not yours.
>
>What point? That (stranger) rape is mostly about sex, not power? She 
>specifically quotes the Chicago police as saying the opposite.


	That was never my point.  My point was that stranger rape
	is the least common form of rape, so conclusions drawn about
	rape from that type alone are probably invalid.


>
>I think I would like to finish this correspondence, as it is
>unfortunately time consuming (I have to write a thesis).
>
>May I suggest you check out misc.writing? If you develop your
>writing skills, you will be in a much better position to 
>fend off unfair treatment in liberal arts classes.


	Ha ha ha.  Sorry, Lenore, my writing is just fine.  The mistreatment
	was based on bias, not on skill.  I am a writing tutor (by request)
	for a number of students and a consistent A-student when it comes
	to writing arguments or papers (or translations) except in the
	WMST classes.

>
>Lenore Levine


-- 
	Blaming society for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
	         ---  Boycott == censorship == cowardice  ---
	Do I even need to point out that my views do not represent
	those of my employer, institution or relations?