HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: zen@death.corp.sun.com (d)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Value of white het-boys lives
Date: 28 Sep 92 23:21:33 GMT
	<ZEN.92Sep28113316@death.corp.sun.com>
	<1992Sep29.014923.6862@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: savage hackers
NNTP-Posting-Host: death.corp.sun.com
In-reply-to: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU's message of Tue, 29 Sep 92 01:49:23 GMT


In article <1992Sep29.014923.6862@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
> In article <ZEN.92Sep28113316@death.corp.sun.com> I write:
> > [blah blah]
> I do think white het-boy is an emotional term.  That's why I only use
> it when I'm expressing contempt for someone (similarly to when I use
> the word breeder).  I will not call all white hetero American men
> white het-boys because I don't think they are.  In fact, I think most
> aren't.

  They're white, they're heterosexual... but I don't, as I said, care if
they're called boys or men in this context -- the fact remains.  White
het-males.

> I do agree with you that if women were more powerful, the world may be
> different, but not any more kinder or gentler.  I don't buy the idea
> that women are naturally more caring or gentler than men.

  Nor do I... who said that?  As a matter of fact, I said that there
*wouldn't* be a difference in history, in all likelihood, if women were
in power.

> >  I don't bash men or white-het-boys because they are men -- I bash
> >people who abuse power or people.
> I agree that within a given class, men usually have more power than
> women.  However, saying something bad is true of all white hetero men
> appears very near to verbal bashing to me.
> An obvious question is, "Do all white, Christian, hetero men abuse
> power?"  I think not.

  I haven't, and never have, said that *all* men oppress women.  I also
didn't say that *all* white christian men (WCM) abuse power.  It's like
saying "blacks were enslaved during the civil war."  It doesn't mean
*all* blacks.  I said WCM were in power, implying a class.  And the
powerful oppress the weak, in many subtle and not-so-subtle ways.  Ergo,
the WCM, as a class of people, abuse power.  I would say, with even more
strength of convinction, that *people*, as a class, abuse power.  My
solution is to try to distribute the power so that no one gets the
chance to hammer the less fortunate.

 -- d
From: chpetk@gdr.bath.ac.uk (Toby Kelsey)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Bias in Academia?
Date: 1 Oct 92 20:25:50 GMT
Organization: School of Chemistry, University of Bath, UK


>In article <1992Sep30.152059.7395@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis) writes:
>>What?  Are you conflating daycare and secondary education?  Do you
>>believe that taxpayers opposed to funding state-supplied daycare are
>>opposed to funding state-supplied secondary education?
>>
>>If so, let me correct you.  I'm against the former and for the latter. 
>>Public education has long been recognized as being worthy of tax dollar
>>suport.  Daycare has not.

In the referenced article, petersm@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU (Marguerite Petersen) writes:

>I was not equating the two per se, just noting that *probably* this same
>*attitude* (i.e. that the parents should shoulder *all* financial
>responsibilities for *their* children)  was why it is so difficult to
>get taxpayer dollars to fund situations involving children. (i.e. they're
>not my children, so why should I pay?)  

Since most people believe that education should be state
funded, I think this '*attitude*' is a straw man.

>*All* children are our society's future, IMHO, (and not just a personal
>ego trip), and as such deserve whatever we, as a society, can give them
>to confront and live in that future.  One child (or one adult for that
>matter) that is not given the opportunities that our society *can* provide
>diminishes that society, IMHO.

Education is about giving children opportunities.

Daycare is about giving adults more free time.

This is a clear reason why one is considered
more worthy of state support, IMHO.

>Marg

Toby
-- 
Toby Kelsey
School of Chemistry,  # JANET: chpetk@uk.ac.bath.gdr, otherwise
University of Bath.   # chpetk%gdr.bath.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (Rini Clarkberg)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: "Alt.feminism - why it should be shut down.  A sample post!"
Date: 28 Sep 92 17:51:23 GMT
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <6401@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood) writes:

>Censorship leaves a bad taste in my mouth.  Even when it's only a suggested
>as being more "*believable* as an effort".  One doesn't have to be a genius
>to read between the lines.

Censorship also leaves a bad taste in my mouth -- I'm totally against it in
any shape or form.  Yet I firmly believe that people censor things in an 
effort to protect others.   This is a misguided effot on their part, IMO, 
but I don't see a contradiction between my first two sentences.

There's a difference between reading between the lines and having paranoid
delusions.

rini
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: real men and women
Summary: Post While You Can, Monkey Boy!
Keywords: HOT HOT HOT!
Date: 29 Sep 92 17:04:51 GMT
Reply-To: tjw+@pitt.edu
Followup-To: poster
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <38747@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark) writes:

>In article <1992Sep21.201748.22481@cbfsb.cb.att.com> mbb@cbnewsb.cb.att.com
(martin.brilliant) writes:
+The following was posted on rec.nude.  It has nothing to do with
+rec.nude.  Rec.nude is not about sex or gender.  It is about doing
+ordinary things without clothes on.  Please do not post discussions of
+sex and gender on rec.nude unless they refer to nude recreation (other

>Yes, everyone knows that nudists deal with each other as Platonic
>Ideals, i.e. architypical forms rather than real sexed individuals
>with fuzzy hair and floppy bodies; no cave shadow watchers here.

Actually, the readers of rec.nude are just tired of getting e-mail like this:

*Hello Tery,

*I noticed your participation in the newsgroup and thought I could ask
*you a few questions.  Would you mind answering some questions about penises
*and fellatio??


"Rec.nude" has as much to do with sex as "Rec.autos" does.  So please feel
free to ask all your sexually oriented questions in REC.AUTOS!  But don't
ever use "alt.sex" 'cause all THEY talk about are cars.

Terry
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: "Attack Pattern" #2
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 06:50:15 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.202608.3080@ultb.isc.rit.edu> ajo9763@ritvax.isc.rit.edu writes:
>  As a man, I know that I am slightly
>inferior to the women around me in emotions.  I just can't seem to relate to
>the way people (particularly women) feel sometimes and I find in observation
>that my male peers are also this way...or they feel they have to put forward
>this sort of 'image'.

I remember reading a study about this very thing.  It was in the
"Lifestyle" section of the newspaper--where issues about women and
lesbigays usually appear.  (I guess women and lesbigays aren't hard
news...)

Anyway, this study had both men and women try to sympathize/empathize
with another person and say what they thought the problem was and how
effective they were at cheering the person up, calming her/him down,
whatever the appropriate action was.  The women reported that they
felt very empathetic and thought they did a good job at diagnosing the
problem and effectively responding to it.  The men thought that they
didn't.  However, the people who were to be diagnosed and responded to
reported no real difference between the men and women.  (A typical
fuzzy experiment that we techies aren't happy with, but...)

Personally, I think there is a shorthand we use with people who are
similar to ourselves and that may make communication a little easier.
However, women have no monopoly on empathy and compassion.  It seems
to be just another stereotype about gender.

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (Rini Clarkberg)
Subject: Re: Freshman
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 03:01:30 GMT

On freshman, fresher, frosh, first-year students, and so on,

jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder) writes:

>>Why shouldn't we call blacks "niggers"?  Or Italians "wops"?
>>Because a fair share of them consider it offensive.  Isn't that
>>enough?
 
>I can call them anything I want.  If I want a positive response from 
>someone I will use a term that is not deragatory.  Besides, nigger, 
>wop, spic, kike, wasp, cracker, are not always offensive.

If this is what your argument boils down to, it's really quite silly.

Sure, Jeff, you can call anyone anything you want.  That's what the
first amendment is all about.  But there is a little thing in this
world called "courtesy" and some of us think it is a Good Thing.

>JerkfaceJeffy  :^]   (my new sig!)

rini

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Bias in Academia?
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 06:17:24 GMT

chpetk@gdr.bath.ac.uk (Toby Kelsey) writes:

I just read a bunch of this thread, and there's one thing here that
I haven't seen anyone comment on.

>Education is about giving children opportunities.

>Daycare is about giving adults more free time.

WHAT THE HELL DO YOU PEOPLE THINK KIDS _DO_ IN DAYCARE?????
WATCH TV?????

I would almost say that it looks like not a single participant in this
thread has ever _had_ a kid in daycare.  Well folks, I do.

I'm talking about daycare centers, not home care.  (Centers, IMO, are
what we would have under federal funding.)

In daycare, my kid:

1. Interacts in a variety of social settings.

Most daycare centers have a number of areas, from play kitchens to
pretend offices.  Good daycare personnel direct play in these areas,
stressing, for example, safety rules in the kitchen.  How many 
parents do more in the kitchen than "Don't touch that!" or "Get
away from there!"?

2. Plays with a variety of educational toys.

Look at the average daycare center, and you will find a hundred
or more different toys.  Certainly more toys than the average
parent would (or, IMO, should) buy for their kid.  Many of
the toys are directly related to preschool education.  (Colors,
shapes, alphabet, numbers, etc)

3. Makes at least one art/craft type project each day.

If I had volumes on childhood art projects, I couldn't come
up with the variety of things I've seen come home from daycare.
Paper-plate puppets.  Popcorn clowns.  Paintings done with
sponges, fingers, brushes, and feet.  Things that regularly
amaze me, often made with materials I'd never have thought of
or couldn't have afforded.

4. Is read stories on a regular basis, from books that are
   available for individual perusal.

Most experts say the best way to teach children to read is to
read to them.

I could go on and on, but I hope I've made my point.  To clarify:

Good daycare _is_ education.  It isn't just a storage unit that
parents toss the kid into while they rush off to get in that
extra tennis game or finish that project for the boss.

A child learns _vital_ skills in daycare, as well as early academics.
I've seen educators who bemoan the fact that we wait until five or
six to start "formally" educating kids.  _Most_ childhood educators
that I've read say that most children can be taught to read well
before they enter first grade.  (Early reading, btw, is closely
correlated with superior performance in school, though I've seen
experts argue both causality directions.)  What golden rule was
handed down that said that children aren't ready to "learn" before
a certain age?

>This is a clear reason why one is considered
>more worthy of state support, IMHO.

Would it help your attitude toward funding if it wasn't called
"daycare", but instead "expanded early education"?

>Toby

                  -rocker
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Playboy/Men/Feminists
Date: 5 Oct 92 21:26:28 GMT
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences

In article <1992Oct1.200919.24015@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <6608@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> tjw+@pitt.edu writes:
>
>>I have always suspected that the written word in Playboy was far more
>>"dangerous" than those "EVIL" pictures.  
>
>I never had a problem with the pictures, but the text is often
>irritating, IMO.  Especially the centerfolds' self-descriptions...
>Blech....  "I'm a space cadet and I like wine and candlelight..."
>Whoever finds *that* exciting... I dunno.  I always find it a little
>depressing.... :(

I always put those in the same category as rag stories (see other thread):
Somebody made it up because it sells.
It sells because people know how ridiculus it is and get a laugh out of it.
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: The 75% woman
Date: 6 Oct 92 00:42:02 GMT
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences

In article <1992Oct3.231219.18594@ccu.umanitoba.ca> kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts) writes:
>
>What would the effect on society, culture and evolution be if women comprised
>75% of the population?  Would women today be better off today?  In a stronger
>position?

Heinlein examined the exact opposite (actually he went for 10%) in _The_Moon_Is
_A_Harsh_Mistress_ to some extent.

That's not the main point of the book.
It's science fiction, and some claim sexist pig authored.
You may still find the conclusions RAH came up with interesting.

Here are a few, and the book is readily available for others:

He thought that women would be so valuable, that they would have complete power
in sexual partner choices.
eg, if you're wife wants a second husband, you can accept him cheerfully or get
out.

He thought rape would be non-existant.  Rapists were eliminated (killed by
thrown out the nearest airlock) by any men available, thus rape was very
infrequent.

Communal living and various family arrangements that definately don't fit the
Quayle model (tm) are proposed as the natural result.

Anyway, I always found his predicted results interesting, though accuracy is
not something I'd like to try and defend or oppose.
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Choice for men
From: rogue@cellar.org (Rachel McGregor)
Date: 30 Sep 92 05:56:30 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system

Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis) writes:

> In article <1992Sep25.175612.6852@leland.Stanford.EDU>
> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
> 
> > You think it should be at the top of the list, but the draft hasn't
> > been used in this country for 20 years.  Feminists may just think
> > there are more pressing concerns than to address an issue that hasn't
> > been an issue for 20 years.
> 
> Perhaps that's because (female) feminists haven't been drafted, and
> haven't had to worry about the possibility of being drafted.  What was
> it they said about men during the Hill/Thomas fiasco?  Something like
> "They just don't understand."
> 
Actually, there's a lot I do understand about the issue, and I'm surprised
that no one (at least not that I've noticed) had mentioned the "Selective
Service" registration process.

Requiring all males to register for the draft when they turn 18 is bad
enough, and it's a decent motivator for some young men to become peace
activists just out of self-preservation sometimes.  But what about the
fact that any male NOT registered with the draft is declared ineligible 
for student financial aid?  It's a genuine case of immoral harassment
against men.

Probably, the reason that many feminists place the drraft on a low priority
is not just because it doesn't affect them directly, it's because (1) draft
or no, it's good sense to prevent wars in the first place; and (2) because
so many men seem complacent about it.  (And I recognize how easy it is to be
complacent under duress - don't presume I'm being flip.)

Compare the level of anti-draft activity to AIDS activism.  AIDS activists
are much mre vocal and visible because they are actually in a crisis where
their lives are in danger (as our ours).  ACT-UP, the loudest AIDS
organization in the country, started among gay men and their friends and has
spread to all sexual, gender, and social strata.  Many ACT-UP groups
inspired women to create WHAM (Women's Health Activism Mobilisation)
chapters t deal with abortion, breast cancer, and pre-AIDS conditions
peculiar to women's bodies.

These groups don't work apart from another - they work with each other on a
regular basis.  So do groups like WILPF and the AFSC, if a little more
quietly.

           
    Rachel McGregor (rogue@cellar.org)  research contractor, modem junkie
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
 The Cellar BBS: 215/654-9184: quickly becoming the Net's most infamous site
 If you don't believe that, look for rogue, darling, richh, techie, or revpk
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Warm Fuzzy Article About ASB
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Date: 30 Sep 92 20:23:45
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1992Sep30.220945.20889@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com's message of Wed, 30 Sep 1992 22:09:45 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.220945.20889@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
>Does anyone have a copy of the warm, fuzzy article about alt.sex.bondange,
>Muffy (Jean) Barkocy, and the merits of cold ice cubes?  The one that was
>printed in the Canadian newspaper?  I wanted to send a copy of it to Terry
>Wood, so she'd have a better idea of why Muffy is going ballistic. (I don't
>think Terry's seen the whole thing.  Though I'm not sure how much she cares
>at this point, actually.)  This is different from the news.admin article,
>BTW.  I don't seem to have a copy of the ASB article in my files anymore.

It might help others to recognize the article if you point out that
a) it was not "warm and fuzzy" (how many newspaper articles are?) and
b) it was not about me (I think I was mentioned in all of 7-8 lines out
   of 400 or so).
c) the title is "computers graphic when it comes to porn"

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
~Little round planet/in a big universe/sometimes it looks blessed/
 sometimes it looks cursed/Depends on what you look at, obviously/
 But even more it depends on the way that you see~ - Bruce Cockburn
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: MacKinnon Legislation Based on Urban Legends?
Keywords: FILM AT 11
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 18:49:42 GMT

The important question is not whether this is an Urban Legend, as it plainly
seems to be one.

The important question is, exactly what role does this little fable play in
MacKinnon's Morality Play??

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

       "Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on this planet.
        Then all things are at risk. It is as when a conflagration has
        broken out in a great city, and no man knows what is safe, or
        where it will end."
                               - Emerson: Essay, "Circles"
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
From: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Subject: Re: Value of Womens' Lives (was: _Backlash_)
Originator: hillyard@tiger.msc.cornell.edu
Reply-To: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell-Materials-Science-Center
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 23:18:21 GMT

From article <peters.717679676@barney>, by peters@cs.city.ac.uk (Peter Smith):
> In <1992Sep26.055229.27451@msc.cornell.edu> hillyard@msc.cornell.edu writes:
> 
[...]
> 
>>Why is it that when a disaster occurs the news usually reports it something
>>like this?  'And ten were killed by the bomb, including two women and a 
>>ten month old baby.'  Now its obvious that mentioning the baby is to heighten
>>the sense of tragedy.  What do you think the reason is for mentioning the
>>women separately?
> 
> Quite simple.
> Because women and babies are very rarely the ones who do stupid things like
> plant bombs. Similarly, in wartime situations, the press often report that
> 10 were killed by the bomb, including 3 civilians - civilians are presumably
> not making war.
> 
> Peter Smith

Kind of a meaningless rebuttal, isn't it?  Replace bomb with fire, bus crash,
tornado, etc--its reported the same.

SEH
From: be662@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Linda S. Fox)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: MEN-BASHING
Date: 30 Sep 1992 17:39:15 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


I've been following the men-bashing discussion for some time.  It seems
that some of the postings suggest that feminists and single women are
the worst bashers. 
I hate to be the one to break the news, but, as a former housewife, I can
assure you that married women are the most vicious men-bashers of all.
This may be related to their perceived lack of power in their relationships
or to other frustrations, but they are figurative testicle-smashers.

Linda Fox
FreeNet
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: SAFE SEX -- IT'S YOUR DUTY
Date: 2 Oct 1992 17:58:27 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

abbst@vms.cis.pitt.edu writes:

>Who knows what undiscovered disease you might be carrying right now? 

>At least get your butt down to the free clinic and get a blood test to check
>for all of the known diseases.  Have them cure what can be cured and live,
>like Magic Johnson, with what can not be cured by practicing safe sex.

Better get two tests, at least 6 months apart....

							--  Michal
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:1799 soc.men:17115 alt.sex:31375
From: sk73171@cs.tut.fi (Kiiskil{ Sami)
Subject: Re: Choice for men
Organization: Tampere Univ. of Technology, Finland.
	<SK73171.92Sep21204843@korppi.cs.tut.fi>
	<1992Sep21.183257.3359@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 08:06:44 GMT


In article <1992Sep21.183257.3359@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (Rini Clarkberg) writes:

> The abnormal ones are the ones who voted against the ERA. :)

If the abnormal ones are the majority there, what is the problem, you got
what you wanted ? Isn't that the point of democracy that a small group
cannot force majority to do what they want ?

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Money isn't everything, : Sami Kiiskil{  ( The { means 'ae' ) :   Nothing   :
: . . . there is also     : e-mail : sk73171@ee.tut.fi          :     is      :
:  H i g h - T e c h  ! ! : phone : 931-180690 or 934-428254    : impossible. :
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- 
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:1671 soc.men:16969