HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Gender differences - Sophie Germain
Date: 15 Dec 92 12:36:24
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
	<1g2egpINN3dl@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> <2185@newsserver.cs.uwindsor.ca>
	<2199@newsserver.cs.uwindsor.ca> <michael.724427507@glia>
	<92350.085253RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET> <BzB8nD.3u8@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu's message of Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:01:58 GMT

In article <BzB8nD.3u8@news.cso.uiuc.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:

> Mr. Parikh, no sensible feminist would deny that men, as well as women,
> are oppressed because of their gender. (Have you seen the discussions
> of this topic in soc.feminism? I encourage you to read that newsgroup
> too, if you can get it.)
> 
> We are just saying two things:
> 
> 1) Women are, on the average, *more* oppressed because of their gender
>    than men. 
...		 
> 2) There are specific ways in which women are oppressed, because
>    they are women, and specific ways this oppression can be fought.

There's a third point to make as well: rigid sex roles hurt both men
and women, and those sex roles are what feminism is fighting against.
Someone who is really concerned with the way that men in our culture
are forced into unhealthy roles---someone, that is, who really thinks
that "women and children first" is offensive---ought to be part of the
feminist movement, rather than an enemy of it.

In other words: oppression of both sexes goes together, and fighting
for equality benefits everyone.  


--
Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Back Again To (Un)Father
Keywords: Two Legs Good, Three Legs Bad...
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 15:29:06 GMT

In article <1ggablINN64m@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>
>>In article <1ge2cdINNlqn@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>>gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>>> 
>>>>At 53, I can
>>>>count on some of you to keep the economy going so I
>>>>can get my social security and dividend checks as I
>>>>hobble around twenty or thirty years hence; but for
>>>>_you_, there will evidently be no next generation.
>>>>Good luck!)
>>>
>>>It's not a dearth of procreation that's bugging this
>>>group.  It's a reluctance to pay for their progeny.
>
>>No, the problem being given full 18-year financial responsibilty
>>for a decision that they have no say in. Note that this is -after-
>>both parties made the decision to have sex.
>
>Like I was saying....

But unlike what I was saying. The issue is one person making a
binding long-term decision for another without regard to their
wishes, and possibly against their wishes.

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

>                                                --  Michal
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Of course there's no reason!  


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Xref: sparky alt.feminism:5947 soc.women:21419 soc.men:21085
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Gender Differences - Sophie Germain
From: <RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Wednesday, 9 Dec 1992 07:59:02 EST
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center


-From: levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine)
-
-I would also like to remind you, Mr. Parikh, that 100 years
-ago, almost all scientific research had for centuries been
-done by Caucasians. And there was, at that time, a theory of
-"scientific" racism, which stated that the "inferior" people
-of color were not capable of intellectual achievements
-as sophisticated as research mathematics. I am sure that,
-if there had been a net in 1892, it would have been full
-of self-appointed pundits (like Nietzsche's horrible sister),
-proclaiming,
-
-"White people DO seem to be better at Math and that is how
things are at the moment!"

Dear Lenore:
Would you like to tell me the answer to the following question, posed
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.

By the way  the answer is 1298   :-)

Rohit Parikh

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: Re: Why are many low-income women fat? (was Re: Separate but Equal?)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 18:29:02 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

I don't know if this has been mentioned: one of the 
contributing factors to poor fitness and health in the
poor is not only ignorance but bad morale.  It is the 
lack of morale which inhibits not only the physical
practices and diet which would support fitness and
health, but also the curiosity which would lead to
finding out about these things in the first place.

It's interesting that there seems to be a kind of
social structure or support for some people to be
actively demoralized by their environing communities.
One wonder what purpose it serves.
-- 

 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: jean@cs.cornell.edu (Jean M. Petrosino)
Subject: Language
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 13:56:17 GMT

I thought I would attempt to start a new thread in this net about the language
we commonly use without thinking of where it originated.  Have you ever 
wondered where the term 'rule of thumb' came from?  Apparently back in a time
when wife-beating was written into law, a man could not beat his wife with any
object that was wider that his thumb.
And how about when you're working out or doing some sort of strenuous exercize
and you are about to drop and someone says to you 'suck it up'?  Couldn't they
just say, "what, don't you swallow?"  

And what about derrogatory terms for both women and men (and their anatomies)? Here is my list (feel
free to add on):

Women:						Men:
	bitch						dick
	cunt						jerk
	slut						dork
	whore						geek
	dog						pig
	hole						muscle-head
	snatch						asshole
	pussy
	prude
	dick-tease
	ice-queen
	

There are a lot more, but I'm having trouble recalling them.  Try this yourself
(add on to this list).  Does it strike you that there are more terms for women
than for men?  Even if you can come up with an equal number of terms for men
and women - do you notice the difference in what the terms for women vs. the 
terms for men imply?  Terms for men imply they are not attractive primarily
because of their intellect (either a lack thereof, or having TOO much), or they
imply that men don't have a good personality.  Derrogatory terms for women 
primarily focus on sexuality (either a lack thereof, having TOO much, or simply
being an object for sex).  Does anyone else find this interesting?

(this post is in no way meant to be flame bait or sarcastic--I would honestly
 like to discuss this issue)

-jean

Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women
From: lib@cbnews.cb.att.com (Lib)
Subject: Re: Nasty E-Mail
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 14:02:42 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.201641.20427@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.111329.3814@mtu.edu> mrmach@mtu.edu writes:
>>
>>    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.

  
Interesting. You can send obscene mail to people and get away with`
it but if the receiver posts it she can be sued. Reminds me of when
Marge Schott made disparaging remarks about Blacks, Japanese and Jews
no legal action resulted but people were warned that if they criticized`her she might sue for slander/libel.

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael)
Subject: Re: CALLING ALL WOMEN..WHERE ARE YOU?
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 14:08:45 GMT

In <2980@tymix.Tymnet.COM> baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich) writes:
>I just know I'm gonna regret this, buuut......

>It sure looked to me like this recent exchange between rini and Heiner was
>all in fun with sarcastic and rather outrageously humorous quips from
>both of them. If this is a joke could I please have, like, one smilie?

>If not take it to email.

Well, I don't see how it could have been anything but a joke.  And so far
I've enjoyed it immensely. :)

As a matter of fact, its been a wonderful break from the standard fair on
this group.  I'd like to see it continue a while, but I'll understand if
it doesn't.

    Michael Stanley (michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: Women in Mathematics: One Final Thought
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 07:02:02 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.041708.12960@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>But anyway, Robert, you just agrued a few posts ago that aggression 
>was essential to success.  Now you tell us that aggression is an
>indicator of failure and resentment.  I'm smelling some post facto
>rationalizations here.

Yes, there is the whole matter that Nietzsche, and later Freud, termed
"sublimation." In the Nietzschean sense, one's "will to power" should
ideally be "sublimated" from a sort of generalized angry malaise (what
I suppose Iron John is supposed to feel when he is beating on drums)
to a finely-focused *application* of that energy to a purpose that
promotes one's overall goals. Walter Kaufmann, in his definitive
analysis of Nietzschean thought, "Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist,
Antichrist" (Princeton Univ. Press, 1974, p. 220) writes:

    Nietzsche believed that a sexual impulse, for example, could
    be channeled into a creative spiritual activity, instead of
    being fulfilled directly. Similarly, the barbarian's desire to
    torture his foe can be sublimitated into the desire to defeat one's
    rival, say, in the Olympic contests; it can even be sublimated
    into the rivalry of the tragedians who vie with each others for
    the highest prize, or into the efforts of a Plato to write more
    beautifully than the poets - and the entire Socratic dialectic
    could be construed as a sublimation of the same ancient striving
    to overwhelm one's foe.

So the bully-boy is someone who has a strong will-to-power, but who
has not learned how to *sublimate* it into something that will
ultimately benefit his life's goals. Guys like him end up spending
the rest of their lives working in the car wash. :)

Somebody raised the issue of the relative disadvantage of blacks
and Hispanics in the corporate world; was I arguing that these men
lack aggression? Not at all. I would say that the Crips and the
Bloods represent *highly* competitive organizations. The problem
is that this prodigious energy has not been sublimated into forms
that will ultimately be useful to them, and hence is dissipated in
activities that are ultimately self-defeating.

-- 
  
        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: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Football: Robert Sheaffer's Central Metaphor?
Organization: LLNL
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 23:26:03 GMT


	I have finally come across what seems to be the dominating
metaphor in Robert Sheaffer's thoughts on relations between the sexes.
I think that he continually makes analogies to pro football (American
football, to be specific, not what in America is called soccer),
though he does not make them explicit.

	Here is how American football is played, so that anyone not
familiar with the game can see what I'm talking about:

	Two teams of 11 men (female football players are almost
unheard of) struggle to get the ball to the other team's side of the
field, and to prevent the other team from getting the ball to _their_
side of the field. The ball is to be gotten to the appropriate goal
posts by kicking, throwing, or being carried by a player; the ball may
be kicked or thrown to another player who may then run the rest of the
way. The other team may get the ball by catching it when it is in the
air, or (I'm not sure about this) grabbing it from someone running
with it. The play temporarily stops whenever the ball touches the
ground; one way of making this happen is by the tackle, whereby
players from the other team pile up on the unfortunate ball-holder.

	Women in football? Always as cheerleaders, who are usually
scantily clad sex objects. They are not really important to the game,
it must be said. I personally have nothing against exhibitionism in
principle, just against exploitation.

	Looking at this description, it is what seems the most like
RS's description of how to get ahead: by being violent and aggressive
to others. And it also fits what he seems to think about the female
sex: that women are genetically programmed to find their greatest
happiness in servicing men and children, with exceptions to this rule
being irrelevant.

	I don't like football because it seems too gladiatorial for my
taste; tackles are especially bad. I am especially disappointed that
those concerned about violence do not take aim at football, despite
its very violent nature. Boxing may be worse overall, but at least it
is one versus one, and it doesn't have tackling.

	Those concerned about sexism will also find football
objectionable, though that might be corrected by setting up all-female
football leagues.
-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
From: ltf@ncmicro.lonestar.org (Lance Franklin)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Lime Jello
Date: 15 Dec 92 23:44:48 GMT
Organization: NC Microproducts, Inc.

In article <1992Dec13.230725.25430@wam.umd.edu> sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell) writes:
}To my horror I am slowly becoming what I want to be, but not quite
}the way I want it....ie a stuffy academic.
}
}I must have been studying to hard *chuckle* 

Well, perhaps...and DON'T CALL ME CHUCKLE!
 
}What is the significance of lime jello? *chuckle*

The significance is long since lost in antiquity, but it's fun, anyway.
 
}Is it the flavor, color, or texture that makes this a desired substance?

A little of all the above, of course.

}Is it still a desired substance with/without the trampoline only?

Trampoline?  Good lord, no!  Bathtub, yes...jacuzzi, perhaps, although
it tends to clog the jets...Waterbed, without sheets, certainly!

But Trampoline?  Only if you wear wetsuits to pack the jello in.


I was, however, unaware this was a feminist issue.  Have I missed
something?



Lance "Pudding Pops" Franklin 

-- 
Lance T. Franklin            +----------------------------------------------+
(ltf@ncmicro.lonestar.org)   | "You want I should bop you with this here    |
NC Microproducts, Inc.       |    Lollipop?!?"                 The Fat Fury |
Richardson, Texas            +----------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,misc.misc
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: feminist sound bytes
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 18:02:26 GMT

sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:

>>>So, Rini, I take it you now accept the conclusion that male dominance both
>>>in the classroom AND in the business conference room can be explained
>>>by the greater aggressiveness of the male? 

>>Of course. I certainly would agree that men tend to be more aggressive 
>>than females...  would any feminist say otherwise?

>    Actually, some *do*. Others, however, admit the distinction. But
>    you know how it is: feminism represents many diverse viewpoints! :)

Gosh, really?  I thought all the RadFemSurfNazis everyone complains
about were the ones who argued that Men => Violence.  I've never heard...
well... ANYONE *ever* argue that men do not tend to be more violent
than women.   

(I would appreciate some source, Robert, that claims that men do not
tend to be more violent than women.)

>>>And hence there is nothing
>>>(short of forcing the women to undergo testosterone treatment!) that's
>>>going to change this?
>>
>>Where you got this from is beyond me. 
>
>   Well, as long as we expect men to have more testosterone than women
>   do, we should *expect* the male domination of discussions in
>   classrooms and corporate conference rooms to continue, indefinitely.

Oh, I see.  You believe we are all prisoners of our hormones.  *THAT*,
I do NOT buy.

rini
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Gender differences - Sophie Germain
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 04:03:58 GMT

In article <MUFFY.92Dec8182114@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <2185@newsserver.cs.uwindsor.ca> bouche2@server.uwindsor.ca (BOUCHER DAVID            ) writes:
>>This may seem disingenuous to some people, but why does it even MATTER
>>whether or not the proportions of men and women in science and math are 
>>equal?  As long as everyone is free to follow their own interests, most 
>>people are bound to gravitate to whatever they do best.
>
>Why does it matter?  Feminists came along and said "everyone should be
>free to follow their own interests, and this is not true for women, so
>things need to be changed."  

Unless I am greatly mistaken, this was not what feminists "came along"
and said. The gist has been more to the effect that 'women are not free
to follow their own interests'. The feminists in the 60's as I recall
laid the blame squarely where it belonged, upon those male chauvanist pigs.
This is not what the feminists here and now are saying however, although
it seems to me that is still the message of some, said much more carefully.
(for example, Michal Leah Peri, who seems to do no more than find fault
with posts by male posters)

>                             Then the anti-feminists said "that's not
>true at all, no one is *stopping* women from being in math (etc.)." Then
>the feminists said "but look at how few women there are in math;
>something *is* stopping them."  Now we're stuck in the argument of
>whether or not women are inherently bad at math, which was one of the
>concepts that caused the problem in the first place.

Well, under much worse conditions, Marie Curie still managed to do 
outstanding science, Joan of Arc (sp?) managed to beat men at their
own game (war), etc...  The odd thing about the line of reasoning above
is that there are outstanding examples in every other field of study
-but- math (as far as I am aware). I recall typing a term paper for
someone about women in Journalism, and the same sexist accusations were
presented. The author had never even heard of Dorthy Fulltime (sp?)
or the other famous women of the sixties.

What does this mean? Draw your own conclusions.
 
>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 breadth?~ - Bruce Cockburn


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael)
Subject: Re: Mysogynist Bullshit
Organization: University of Washington
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 14:16:16 GMT

In <1992Dec10.142534.16313@cs.cornell.edu> jean@cs.cornell.edu (Jean M. Petrosino) writes:
>How about this one:
>	Why do men name their penises?
>				-Because they don't want a stranger making 
>				 99% of their decisions for them.

*laugh*  That's actually funny.  Did you think of that one yourself?  Or did
you read it somewhere?  I'll swear I've never seen it before. :)

    Michael Stanley (michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: feminist sound bytes
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 21:23:55 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.040930.12720@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
> 
>>So, Rini, I take it you now accept the conclusion that male dominance both
>>in the classroom AND in the business conference room can be explained
>>by the greater aggressiveness of the male? 
>
>Of course. I certainly would agree that men tend to be more aggressive 
>than females...  would any feminist say otherwise?
>
>>And hence there is nothing
>>(short of forcing the women to undergo testosterone treatment!) that's
>>going to change this?
>
>Where you got this from is beyond me. 
>
>rini
>
>Hey -- what about forcing men to undergo estrogen treatment!!!  ;)

Estrogen and testosterone do not chemically cancel each other, as far
as I know. If testosterone does cause aggressive behavior, estrogen
treatments will not reduce it. There are other effects. From an article
in _Science_News_, male workers in factories where birth control
pills are made tend to get larger breasts. There were a few other 
minor effects, but I do not recall what they were.


Rich

payner@netcom.com

 


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: dawn@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dawn Owens-Nicholson)
Subject: Re: feminist sound bytes
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 14:53:07 GMT

mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:

>Just FYI, the NSFH is quite large.  Well over 10,000 people, though the
>exact figure escapes me at the moment.  (12,4xx??? 14,7xx???)

13,017 respondents (I am using this dataset for my dissertation, I think
I have memorized every individual response!)

-Dawn

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel)
Subject: Re: CALLING ALL WOMEN..WHERE ARE YOU?
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp.
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:30:53 GMT

baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich) writes:

...[exchange elided]...

>I just know I'm gonna regret this, buuut......

>It sure looked to me like this recent exchange between rini and Heiner was
>all in fun with sarcastic and rather outrageously humorous quips from
>both of them. If this is a joke could I please have, like, one smilie?

>If not take it to email.

OK. ;-)

Regards,
       H. Biesel
Newsgroups: alt.feminism