HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov (Michael W. Rowland)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Reading Suggestion
Date: 3 Jan 1993 23:05:08 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA 23681  USA
Distribution: world
Reply-To: rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov (Michael W. Rowland)
NNTP-Posting-Host: zorba7.larc.nasa.gov

(the next line for hotheads only)
READ THE WHOLE THING BEFORE YOU FLAME

I have been passively reading the posts in this newsgroup for 
sometime. Because of the complexity of the subjects addressed 
here, I went out and bought three books to brush up on these 
subjects.

The three books are:

1)  "The Way Things Ought to Be"  Rush Limbaugh (of course!)

2)  "Illiberal Education"  Dinesh D'Souza
     (The politics of race and sex on campus)

3)  "Why Johnny Can't Tell Right from Wrong"  William
                                              Kilpatrick
     (Moral illiteracy and the case for character education)

Any of you that are active in the arguments currently 
threading through this newsgroup would be WELL ADVISED to 
find, buy, and study these books.  Especially the ones by 
D'Souza and Kilpatrick.  As it turns out, Limbaugh's book 
seems to reflect much of what these two authors espouse.  
Those of you who delete these books as a reference (pro or 
con) from your arguments will really do a disservice to the 
complexities and profoundness of the value of the subjects. 
I really think that most of America can agree with their
content if they study the content carefully. 

Anyone who reads these books, especially the second and
third one, is welcome to send me comments about them.  I
really am interested in what you may have to say about their
ideas.  A background about yourself would be helpful, so I
know your perspective.  Please use the E-mail address.

Thanks,

Mike

Mike Rowland (Contractor),  MS 475
NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton VA 23681
internet: rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: Violence
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 18:00:39 GMT

michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael) writes:
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>jean@cs.cornell.edu (Jean M. Petrosino) writes:

>>>                                        I think the men here have to stop
>>>directing their anger at feminists who call attention to violence issues, 
>>>and re-direct their anger at the men who are committing these violent acts.

>>Yes, when women are angry, their anger is valid. But when men voice their
>>anger, they are misdirected. This explains a lot.

>That is not what she just said.  But I suppose its easy to make fun of
>someone just after you stuff words in their mouth.

Whaaaattt?  *Rich*?  Rich misconstrue something somebody said just so that
he could piss on it???????  Nooooo.  Tell me it isn't so!  

rini
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
From: lib@cbnews.cb.att.com (Lib)
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 13:16:21 GMT

In article <168C1CB92.SURGDM@mizzou1.missouri.edu> Diane writes:
> 
>1) Who are the major proponents of circumcision?
>- Doctors, the mojority of which are still men.
>2) Who does the majority of bullying in school?
>- Boys
>3) Who tries out for football teams?
>- boys/ men
>4) Who legislated draft registration?
>- legislative bodies which are comprised overwhelmingly of men
>5) Who murders the most men?
>- Men
>6) Who the hell forces you to watch boxing on television?
>- Big Clue: You. Are you a man? 'Nuff said.
>7) Who killed the men in Arlington Cemetary?
>- Men
>8) Who sent our brothers/fathers/husbands to Viet Nam?
>- Men

Who made Roe v. Wade the law of the land?
5 men.
 
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine)
Subject: Re: Damned Souls (was Re: Version Five)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 19:34:09 GMT

gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:

>In article <C058Hz.Fq2@news.cso.uiuc.edu> 
>levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:

>>I am only defending the idea that affirmative action is *sometimes*
>>reasonable. I would by no means defend all current uses of affirmative
>>action.

>Which one would you defend?

If you are talking about affirmative action to give preference to groups
of people (as opposed to individual evaluations of people that are in
part based on their specific background), the best example is the
Alabama State Trooper case.

For many years, black people were not allowed to be Alabama state
troopers. Note this is the sort of occupation that many black Americans
choose. In any case, when this period of discrimination ended, there was
a very large pool of black Alabamans who wanted to be state troopers,
who could have performed the job acceptably, who had been passed over due to
the previous policy of discrimination.

The government of Alabama was ordered to institute a *temporary* policy
of affirmative action, to amend for previous discrimination. This order
was upheld by a Republican-dominated U.S. Supreme Court. 

>>>Anyway, if you want to check how will you do on your own merit (fat
>>>chance...) then you can refuse to fill up the affirmative action forms.
>>>This way it will be worth to hire you only if the employer
>>>really needs you.

>>What affirmative action forms are you assuming I fill out? Be specific.

>Most employers and most schools ask all applicants to fill out
>affirmative action when they apply.  In those forms one has to 
>tell about his/her race and sex.  I'm a little surprised that
>your school has not asked you to fill out any.

My gender is obvious from my name. My race is Caucasian, which would not
grant me any affirmative action preference. I do not list on
applications any personal facts (beyond my gender) which would grant me 
affirmative action preference.

Lenore Levine
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: Why are many low-income women fat? (was Re: Separate but Equal?)
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 17:32:31 GMT

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:

>>>I did not state that "fat people cannot be physically fit" (another
>>>misrepresentation rini), but that they are -not- fit. If the distinction
>>>is to subtle, then this thread should die.

>>You state that people can be fit or fat. Exclusive or.


>Not exactly, few choose to get fat, I suspect that this is usually a matter
>of training and circumstance. However, noone will go from fat to fit 
                                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>without a consious decision to do so, and a commitment to that goal.

Again, the implication that fat and fit are exclusive.  

One tip:  the opposite of "fat" is "thin".  The opposite of "fit" is
"out of shape".  Fat != unfit and thin != fit... okay?

rini
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: jean@cs.cornell.edu (Jean M. Petrosino)
Subject: Re: Working with Women vs. Working with Men
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 14:04:45 GMT


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.)
	
	"...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.)

	"...women (in my humble experience) seem unable to *commit*
	to getting the job done."

(...by your guidelines and time-table.)


	"It is *not* a power issue."

(...that you are willing to  see, discuss, or begin to understand.)



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: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 21:57:57 GMT

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...

Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 01:40:26 GMT

In article <168C1CB92.SURGDM@mizzou1.missouri.edu> Diane writes:
>1) Who are the major proponents of circumcision?
>2) Who does the majority of bullying in school?
>3) Who tries out for football teams?
>4) Who legislated draft registration?
>5) Who murders the most men?
>6) Who the hell forces you to watch boxing on television?
>7) Who killed the men in Arlington Cemetary?
>8) Who sent our brothers/fathers/husbands to Viet Nam?
> 
>Are you seeing a trend here? If there's a problem with violence, it looks
>suspiciously like a male-problem that women are supposed to just put up with,
>because we may not make up the largest segment of victims. But unfortunately,
>women are victims, and primarily victims of men. If there is a problem with
>male violence, maybe you can start doing something about it instead of just
>running your mouth about how terrible it is. You seem to be angry that women
>would dare to usurp whatever fear you claim to be living with. Deal with it.
>We have dealt with it, are dealing with it, and we're sick of it. You're
>going to have to get your sympathy from somewhere else.

Who raised these men?

>Diane
>If you're not part of the cure, you're part of the problem. [ ]

Uh-huh.

Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM 
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 16:58:04 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.161605.6153@ll.mit.edu> x73rl@ll.mit.edu ( Rick LaFave) writes:
)muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) replies:
)>In article <1992Dec22.155536.13131@ll.mit.edu> x73rl@ll.mit.edu ( Rick LaFave) writes:
)>>Since Feminism is about womens issues, not mens issues, feminists 
)>>concentrate on womens lives/issues
)>
)>Yup.
)>
)>>and are indifferent (at best) to mens lives/issues.
)>
)>This is an assumption of yours, and of the anti-feminists.  It is not
)>inherent in feminism.  *Some* feminists are not interested in men's
)>lives.  *Some* feminists are; some of those include it as part of their
)>definition of feminism, others see it as a separate issue which they
)>are, nonetheless, concerned with.  Finally, a small number of feminists
)>actually hate men, for whatever reason.  However, this is not actually
)>part of feminism, as you imply, it is a personal issue of theirs.
)>
)
)Some? 
)This feminism is good stuff, totally nebulous except when on the attack.

:-)  Well, as long as *some* feminists are interested in 'equal rights' and/
or anything other than strictly 'women's issues', discussion of the
prevalence of  violence against men and the overrepresentation of men in
prision and related topics will continue to be arguably appropriate in
'feminist' newsgroups, IMO.
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Choosing Dangerous Relationships (was: How to Protect Women)
Date: 28 Dec 92 20:02:54 GMT
	<168C6A033.SURGDM@mizzou1.missouri.edu>
	<1992Dec28.191529.13459@netcom.com>
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: sheaffer@netcom.com's message of Mon, 28 Dec 1992 19:15:29 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.191529.13459@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>In article <168C6A033.SURGDM@mizzou1.missouri.edu> Diane writes:
>>I sincerely hope that you are never in an abusive relationship that
>>turns into a stalking situation. It is *much* more common than most
>>people realize. I was in such a situation, and it is small comfort
>>than it is considered so rare as to warrant little consideration in
>>the minds of the general public.

>The easiest way for a woman to avoid such situations would be to
>choose a low-keyed, low-dominance male as her partner.

This is very interesting.  On the one hand, in other articles, you
extoll the virtues of the traditionally aggressive man, definitely
neither low-key nor low-dominance.  Now, you suggest that this sort of
man is likely to be violent to women and should therefore be avoided by
them.  Does this mean that you do not consider a strong likelihood of
violence to be a negative feature?  Or is it just outweighed by the
social advantages of trampling everyone in your path?

Since you advocate the aggressive style, I am assuming that you use it
yourself.  Do you therefore think that no women should date you?  Are
you likely to become violent with a woman who is insufficiently
subservient?

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: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: More endurance/more doctor visits.
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 04:52:50 GMT

In article <1hshirINNh85@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> axb39@po.CWRU.Edu (Ann Burlingham) writes:
>
>>
>>Curiously, women seek medical aid more often than men, even excluding
>>gyn/obs visits. It may be true that women have more capacity for endurance,
>>but in practice, it would seem that they do not use it. Kinda makes one
>>wonder.
>
>I don't see the logic here. 

Perhaps the cause is that the statement is statistical in nature, and logic
is irrelevant. (Do I sound like a Borg?)

>                              Maybe it's like the "women have to be twice as
>good as men to be thought half so" thing - how do you know women aren't
>enduring more? Checked any domestic violence (i.e., long-term sustained
>endurance) statistics lately? 

You have it completely backwards. Women SEEK seek Seek sEEk seeKK sEek
medical attention more than men, even discounting the gyn/obs visits.
They see the doctor more often, I cannot think of many ways to say this,
please work with me, OK?

And if they were enduring more, would you not expect them to see the
doctor -less-? Maybe there is a logical problem as well. <sigh>

Can we refrain from political interpretation? I admit that black is
white, and white is black, and when I do it to you I'm a sexist, but
you are not if you do it to me. 
 
>Ann Burlingham                         If this be the best of all possible    
>2752 Hampshire Rd., Apt. 3              worlds, what can the rest be like?
>Cleveland Heights, Ohio 44106                            Voltaire: Candide
>(216) 397-7458

[I miss the Ohio winters]

Rich

payner@netcom.com



Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women,sci.skeptic
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
X-To: MICHAEL
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 22:31:00 GMT

michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael Stanley) writes...
>Hmm.  I see some slight of hand.  Lets attempt to see through it...
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Hmmm....so do I...

>Dan S.:
>>Diane:

>>> 2) Who does the majority of bullying in school?
>>> - Boys
>>Who reinforces their socialized roles of toughness?
>>- girls/women

>*BEEP*  Wrong answer.

>Interesting.  I would have said boys/men reinforce socialized roles of
>toughness.  That's how it was when I grew up.  Most of the girls/women
>I met thought the boys/men were kind of stupid for what they did.  That
>is when they weren't shocked at some of the brutality of it.


*BEEP*  Wrong Answer!

Sure, the girls/women might have been shocked by it, but did you ever see
them dating the non-athletic bookworms who didn't "shock" them?  No, they
mostly seemed to prefer the athletes.  Apparently, the same things that
"shock" them, also seem to attract them.  The question is ... WHY?

Believe me, if you've ever been to high school, which I am sure you have,
you'd know *just* how popular our athletes were.  These are the same
"brutes" who would call me "nerd" one minute and then the next minute
I'd see them arm-in-arm with a girl.  I was jealous, and *almost* thought
of abandoning my studies to concentrate on athletics, but somehow it just
didn't happen.  :-)  Of course, I ended up getting the last laugh, almost -
I don't recall having seen that many of them when I was in university...

So before telling us that "macho" standards of athleticism are only a
male-only-originated concept, realise for whom these shows of strength
are ultimately directed.


>>> 4) Who legislated draft registration?
>>> - legislative bodies which are comprised overwhelmingly of men
>>Who voted for these legislators?
>>- men and women

>This WOULD be a point if we could have voted all women into office.
>Unfortunately that wasn't possible.  So this is not a point.

Oh?  Why not?  Sure, I'll hold my breath waiting for Diane Feinstein to
propose a motion to expand the draft to include women....

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Gravity: It's more than just a fragrance.  It's the LAW!"
   - Will Steeves, President, GOiDS "R" We, Inc.

 * SLMR 2.1a * Tamarian mugger: Timar, his arms up, NOW!
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Date: 23 Dec 92 07:28:42
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<MUFFY.92Dec22131202@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<1992Dec23.070715.10499@smds.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: rh@smds.com's message of 23 Dec 92 07:07:15 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.070715.10499@smds.com> rh@smds.com (Richard Harter) writes:
   I read the following in soc.men -- note the newsroups line which I
   have not changed...

   In article <MUFFY.92Dec22131202@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

   >that people who are concerned about women's issues *should* be spending
   >their time on men's issues.  Why not keep it in soc.men and stop all
   >this ridiculous cross-posting?

   We don't get alt.feminism -- the only reason I saw this article was that
   it was cross-posted to soc.men and soc.women which we do get.  I will
   refrain from making the obvious cheap shots.  However I suspect that some
   will miss the point so I will spell it out.  If you, muffy, cross post
   then people will respond to your postings in the group that you cross
   post to.  It scarcely makes sense for you to complain about cross posting
   when you regularly do it yourself.

You don't seem to understand.  I have *never* explicitly cross-posted an
article to soc.men.  I have followed up to many such articles, since
every new thread seems to be cross-posted.  Once a thread is
cross-posted, I do not know which group the person I am responding to is
reading, so I do not change the Newsgroups: line, since there would be
no point in responding to someone who will not receive the response.  My
exhortation was to the people who *begin* the threads cross-posted.  I
realize that I did not make that clear, but it did seem obvious to me at
the time - you certainly seem to understand this concept, but you do not
seem to have thought out the consequences of the idea that "people will
respond to your postings in the group that you cross-post to."

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: sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell)
Subject: Re: Working with Women vs. Working with Men
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 15:50:22 GMT

In article <ZEN.92Dec23161814@death.corp.sun.com> zen@death.corp.sun.com (d) writes:
>
>In article <1992Dec23.203358.7692@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>   In article <1992Dec23.190432.29510@cs.cornell.edu> jean@cs.cornell.edu (Jean M. Petrosino) writes:
>> >When in doubt, quote the superiority of capitalism and Darwin's
>> >survival of the fittest theory.  
>> It works.  That's a lot more than I can say for alternative
>> theories.
>
>  So you're saying that if I come up to you and blow you away with a
>shotgun, then you were just unfit to live (survival of the fittest and
>all, ya know)?  *You* may call that working, but not me (well, if it
>happened to you, I might make an exception), at least, not as a viable
>ethical and/or human solution.  Of course, if morals/ethics don't matter
>to you, alt.feminism might not be where you belong... of course, this
>planet might not be either...
>
>  But I'd say that pure capitalism and darwinism work about as well in
>practice as pure communism and dworkinism.
>
> -- d

I think he was talking about "social darwinism" which purports that people
with the talent/drive rise to the top and enjoy the benefits of society
while the others sink down into squalor.  Im staying out of this debate, but
for once Id like to meet an honest tycoon "I got my money by theft, exploitationand by others giving me advantages that I want to deny others now."

Steve R

Xref: sparky alt.feminism:6482 soc.men:21744 soc.women:21869