HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Diane
Subject: Re: Why are many low-income women fat? (was Re: Separate but Equal?)
Organization: University of Missouri
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 11:33:51 CST

In article <1992Dec10.193914.9338@netcom.com>
payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
 
>In article <168B88793.SURGDM@mizzou1.missouri.edu> Diane writes:
 
>>Exercise? I think you would have a tough time proving that lower income
>>people get less exercise, especially since the most labor-intensive jobs
>>(housekeeping, childcare, etc.) are usually poorly paid.
>
>Once again, you can work yourself to death and not get any exercise. The
>two are not equivalant.
>
Rich, I think you're confused. Aerobic exercise is the best as far as the
cardiovascular system is concerned; weight-bearing exercise is best for
the skeletal system, etc. Housework, with bending, lifting, etc. uses an
impressive number of calories, but may not be aerobic. That's okay, because
while aerobics may an excellent form of exercise, it's not the only
one.
 
>>And last, women are genetically more likely to gain and retain weight
 
>Curiously, this sounds like another stereotype. Perhaps the men just
>get more excercise day to day.
 
 
No Rich, curiously, this sounds like differential human physiology
between the sexes. Women's metabolisms on average are more efficient
(ie require less fuel to maintain life) then men's of comparable height/weight.
Men get more exercise? It would be nice if you could attempt to prove it,
but for now it sounds like another stereotype.
I have been collecting data for a few years now on morbidly obese people
who elect to have gastroplasties (stomach staplings). There are more women
who present, and they average about 150% of their ideal body weight (based on
sex and height). The men in my study average 212% above their ideal body
weight at the initial exam. There are other striking differences between the
groups, but oddly enough I have found little difference in exercise levels.
 
Diane
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel)
Subject: Re: Mysogynist Bullshit
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:45:40 GMT

<Bz2DDM.8M0@javelin.sim.es.com> 
<1992Dec12.021406.13333@u.washington.edu> 
<1992Dec12.043838.13722@midway.uchicago.edu>

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

>twain@milton.u.washington.edu (Barbara Hlavin) writes:
> 
>>--Barbara, in love with Heiner, 
>            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>**** >>>  So it is BARBARA HLAVIN !!!! <<< ****
>          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>Why I outta....   OH!  I'm so mad!! Lime Jello, right Barbara?  
>Big ol' trampoline, eh Barbara?  Flaunting those San Diego Zoo 
>connections, is that how you do it Barbara?  I can't believe 
>this is happening right under my nose!  I just can't believe it!!!

>Well Barbara, I hope you just take note of how old (btw, don't believe
>him when he says he's 68... he's been 68 for the last ten years....)
>Heiner's treated me here.  He dumped me; he'll dump you.  

>And just one peice of advice, woman to woman:  say "NO" to his
>horseradish fetish.  (If you do decide to go ahead with it, please
>talk to your doctor first!!!)

Ladies, ladies, stop it, this is so unseemly! Why, if I were only ten
years younger I'd take a switch to the both of you. Can't we handle this 
like adults? rini, Barbara is a wonderful lady, and the fact that she
has some interesting friends with the circus is just a side issue. More
important is the way she makes me feel, and that wonderfully dry, almost
reptilian skin of hers ( she tells me it's a rare skin disorder, but I
thing she was blessed ) Let's just see if we can't work this out without
fighting. How about we all get together at Pete's Bistro - you remember,
that intimate little dive by the harbor in San Diego, where we met "Muffy"
for the first time - and work thing out between the three of us, eh? I
think you might like Barbara; you should see her etchings...

Regards,
       Heiner
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: Robert's "Book"
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 07:23:20 GMT

In article <1992Dec6.163906.19973@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>
>Nietzsche often seems to spot a critical cultural issue, and
>then manages to put himself on the dumb side of it.  (One
>wonders if he does so ironically.)  A famous example, which
>relates to our subject, appears in his _Genealogy_of_Morals_
>where he describes how the subjugated peoples of the ancient
>slave empires evolved an ideology, Christianity, which
>destroyed the values and morale of their formerly hearty,
>strong, cheerful oppressors.  According to Nietzsche, this
>was a Bad Thing: the weak and bad were overthrowing the
>strong and good.  The problem with his theory is, of course,
>that the alleged weak and bad, by overthrowing their rulers,
>showed that they were actually the (relatively) strong and
>good -- by Nietzsche's own standards.  They won.

There has been a lot of misunderstanding of Nietzsche coming out
of this thread. What he actually said about Christianity's victory
was NOT that they became stronger, and hence won; rather, they
won by their cunning "covert revengefulness", they infected the healthy
citizens of Rome with their sickness, their hatred of life:

   From Nietzsche's "Der Antichrist":

   [58] "One may assert an absolute equivalence between _Christian_ and
    _anarchist_: their purpose, their instinct is set only on
   destruction." [The prinicpal activity of the 19th century 
   "anarchist" was to throw bombs; the 20th century anarchist merely
   posts to Usenet.]

   "Christianity discovered its mission in making an end of just such
   an organization [Rome] because _life prospered within it_" 

   [59] "Ruined by cunning, secret, invisible, anaemic vampires! Not
   conquered - only sucked dry! Covert revengefulness, petty envy
   become master! Everything pitiful, everything suffering from itself,
   everything suffering from base feelings, the whole ghetto-world of
   the soul suddenly on top!"  (Sounds like the day the Politically
   Correct dream of!)

-- 
  
        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)
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: why poor women are obese
Date: 13 Dec 1992 21:27:10 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:

>In article <1ge3s3INNm2i@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:

>>Also, how many libraries are in the poor residential neighborhoods?  
>>How many are open after work hours, when the working poor can get 
>>to them?
> 
>You tell me. And tell me how this will affect housewives while you
>are at it. (as per the subject line)

The subject line (on my newsreader) reads "why poor women are obese".
I'm not quite sure why you feel this has to do with housewives, 
since most of the poor are in families headed by single working women.

							--  Michal

-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
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 17:27:53 GMT

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

...[embarassing exchange deleted]...

>>>Out of
>>>the blue, somebody else comes along with a big ol' tramp (refurbished 
>>>springs, no doubt) and suddenly it's "I've got unmet needs."  Sheez.  
>>>You can't fool me, Heiner.  It's always the same old same old with you
>>>men.  

>>HB: 
>>Women! You can't live with them, you can't live without them! I tried,
>>God knows I tried, but you just couldn't meet me halfway.  Well, I'm
>>sorry, very sorry, but I have to be good to myself first and regain the
>>self-esteem that our mutually co-dependent relationship destroyed.  For the
>>first time in months I can look in the mirror and laugh again!

>That's a good one Heiner.   Ha ha ha, very funny.  You're so very funny
>when you look in the mirror, are you?  Funny funny funny. Ladies and 
>Gentlemen: Heiner thinks he is very funny!  Isn't that cute? Yes, 
>Heiner looks back at our destroyed relationship and my devastated
>life, and he laughs.  He watches me suffer, and he laughs.  Ha ha ha ha
>ha -- it's so *very* funny, isn't it?  Boy, he's got a *great* sense
>of humor.  About as funny as Hitler.

Oh, stop it rini! It's just no good. Look, everyone is staring at us.
I don't enjoy watching you suffer. I'm sorry you're hurt, truly sorry;
I'm even willing to go with you to see Dr. Benway for counseling, but
I draw the line at shock treatments. (not that I expect much help; I
remember only too well the humiliation I felt when we went to that
psychodrama quack, and you acted out your necrophiliac fantasies. I
could never face those people again after that...)

Anyway, I still care about you. So, sweetie, just for you "87%, two
sigma deviation!".

Regards,
       Heiner.
From: wilson4450@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Feminazi Mistake!!!!!!
Date: 16 Dec 92 13:36:37 -0600
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

I want to apologize for the comments in Feminazi. I did not write this note,
someone used my terminal while I was away from it!!! Once again I am deeply
sorry and never intended for this message to appear!!

Sorry again!

Chris Wilson4450

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: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 17:06:00 GMT

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

Of course...


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.dads-rights,soc.men,rec.arts.books
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: FAQ: Books on Men, Ma
X-To: BOUCHER DAVID
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 16:37:00 GMT

bouche2@server.uwindsor.ca (BOUCHER DAVID) writes...
BD> In article <1992Dec09.000515.17709@rat.csc.calpoly.edu> dgross@polyslo.CalPo
BD> DU (Dave Gross) writes:

BD> >       Chesler, Phyllis "About Men" Harcourt Brace Jovanovich 1978
BD> >
BD> >I haven't read this one, but it seems to be a Jungian analysis of the male
BD> >condition based on interviews and such. [....]
BD> >  Chesler is currently working on a sympathetic portrait of a female
BD> >serial killer who killed a number of men in Florida, so that may give you s
BD> >idea as to her leanings.{DG}

BD> I read this book a long time ago, or at least part of it.  After reading 50+
BD> pages of unrelenting male-bashing, I was thoroughly disgusted and cut to
BD> the summation in her last chapter.  The basic conclusion of the book is that
BD> all men are at heart nothing but cold-blooded murders.  I am not exaggeratin

BD> Maybe she is still angry about the time Frank Sinatra yelled at her in
BD> public and made her cry... ;)

What did he say to her???

This should be quite interesting...

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

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * I'm not lost, I'm "locationally challenged".
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Feminist Censorship in Canada
Date: 11 Dec 92 10:00:28
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
Distribution: alt
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: dsteinbe@nmsu.edu's message of Fri, 11 Dec 1992 02:32:11 GMT

In article <DSTEINBE.92Dec10193211@emmy.nmsu.edu> dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg) writes:
>I was eatching CNN today and learned that the Beatles song Run For Your Life
>was banned from Canadian radio because of its misogynist (sp?  sorry
>I'm sick) message.  A Canadian feminist group proclaimed it a stunning
>victory.  This, Gordon, is why some of us are so afraid of the
>(so-called) feminist censors.  Yeah the religious right wants to get
>rid of rock and roll too, but how frequently do they get songs removed
>from the radio?

Afraid?  I'm not afraid of feminist censors, but I certainly think they
are wrong.  I don't think Gordon has questioned (although he may have,
but not in what I have read) why some people object to feminist censors;
he has simply pointed out that just because some censors are feminists
does not mean that all feminists are censors.

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: dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg)
Subject: Re: Women in Mathematics: One Final Thought
Organization: New Mexico State University
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 16:05:08 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.234736.9523@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com
(Robert Sheaffer) writes: 
>In article <MUFFY.92Dec10003300@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>
>>>Barred from realizing their potential by the likes of
>>>Martha Stewart and Jenny Craig! How do you suppose they would fare
>>>if they had to overcome some *real* obstacles?
>>
>>Like what?  How about giving us some real-life examples?  Tell us about
>>all the difficulties you have overcome to reach your current position.
>>What *is* that position, btw?  The only position I've heard of you
>>holding is that "Past Chairman" business...what do you *do*?
>
     (stuff deleted)
>
>So, let me suggest an obstacle I faced that I doubt *you* or your
>feminist crowd ever faced: Quiet, shy girls who study hard and get
>good grades might be 'told they're not attractive'. But quiet, shy
>boys who study hard and get good grades are not only 'told they're not
>attractive,' but get followed around and beaten up by the schoolyard
>bully. And this happens not once or twice, but typically a lot. Gee,
>I'm *so glad* I didn't have to face an adversary like Jenny Craig or
>sexist Barbie dolls, else my life would have been wasted!

  This actually is the best point I've ever seen Robert make.  As
someone who spent 7 years of his life being beat up on a regular
basis, it does put something like Barbie into perspective.  However,
there is the question of the kind of adversary that these things are.
It could be possible that getting beat up could lead someone to
venture further into the world of books.  (However, in my case, it
lead me to miss school about 40-50 days a year out of the sheer
tension caused by going there.)
   
 
>        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com

-David "ZZYZX" Steinberg- King of the ellipses
       (dsteinbe@emmy.nmsu.edu)
**********************************************************************
*"There's a dog in the station  *"I can't believe I'm a junior and a *
* With a bad reputation         * film major, when all I really      *
* That's a sign of the nation's * wanted in this life was to marry a *
* Decay"                        * lobsterman and cook fish."         *
* -Phish                        * -a letter from Christie Searing    *
**********************************************************************
From: jay@UUSERV.CC.UTAH.EDU (Jay Deuel)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Feminazi Mistake!!!!!!
Date: 17 Dec 92 00:04:17 GMT
Organization: University of Utah Computer Center

>I want to apologize for the comments in Feminazi. I did not write this note,
>someone used my terminal while I was away from it!!! Once again I am deeply
>sorry and never intended for this message to appear!!

Can you spell L-O-G-O-U-T ?
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Why are there only men on
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 21:28:55 GMT

In article <1992Dec9.153536.20644@nmsu.edu> dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg) writes:
>In article <1992Dec7.031938.583@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>>Starbuck, do you have any idea what sexual orientation is?  How
>>can there be a sexual competition for women between lesbians and
>>(hetero/bi) men when lesbians want lesbian women?  How do you suggest
>>that lesbian women talk hetero women into wanting sex with another
>>woman?  That has about as much chance as a hetero man talking a
>>lesbian woman into wanting sex with men.
>
>I dunno about this.  I recall reading an article in Ms Magazine about
>a year ago called Orchids in the Artic.  Its point was that women who
>are in relationships with men should seriously consider getting out of
>them, or at least take steps that would put barriers between the two.

But was this a call to sexual/romantic relationships between women or
was it a call to women not to assume they have to be in
sexual/romantic relationships with men?  There's a huge difference
between telling women to "try lesbianism" and telling women that many
sexual/romantic relationships with men can be harmful.

I remember reading a book (perhaps _Sisterhood is Powerful_) where
some women were ridiculing a monthly article in a women's magazine,
"Can this marriage be saved?"  Their comments were "Should this
marriage be saved?" making the point that some women _need_ to leave
bad marriages and not be called maladjusted because they can't live
with disrespectful, abusive husbands.  (I'd say the same thing to
husbands with disrespectful, abusive wives.)

>I also recall the repsonses in this issue to Naiome Wolf's (sp?)
>article on Radical Heterosexuality.  Maybe the attempts of these women
>are in vain, but it does seem to be trying to convince heterosexual
>women to become lesbians.  (Actually, I tend to agree with most of the
>points in these articles, but that's another story...)

Well, to whom does it seem to be trying to convince hetero women to
become lesbians?  It seems that we have a self-selecting screen where,
if it is suggested that many women should opt out of romantic/sexual
relationships with men, the default is automatically assumed that it's
being said that women should opt for romantic/sexual relationships
with women.  Personally, I know several hetero women who, at this
point in their lives, don't want romantic/sexual relationships with
men because they take too much time and effort the women would sooner
put into other activities.  

Xref: sparky alt.feminism:6208 soc.men:21373 soc.women:21618
From: pepke@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Gender differences - Sophie Germain
Date: 17 Dec 92 23:55:49 GMT
Reply-To: pepke@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: Florida State University, but I don't speak for them

Check followups.  Also, I've rearranged paragraphs for the purpose of response.

In article <MATT.92Dec15123624@physics.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:
>In other words: oppression of both sexes goes together, and fighting
>for equality benefits everyone.  

I agree with this completely.

>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.

I don't agree with this.  I don't think that feminism has a sufficiently
global notion of what constitutes a sex role or what constitutes power.
As Warren Farrell says, feminism is concerned with women's experience of
men's power.  It is not concerned with men's experience of women's power,
and he thinks that this could use some attention as well.

-EMP
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:6310 soc.men:21523 soc.women:21717
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Subject: Re: Women in Mathematics: One Final Thought
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 16:31:14 GMT
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences

In <1992Dec11.043431.4423@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:

>So, let's see: from [Sheaffer's] argument (I only changed a couple of nouns
>here) smart boys who study hard in school should expect to be failures 
>in the job market, right?   

I think his point is that the job market looks for whatever it looks
for, so smart boys who study hard but find they don't succeed as much
as oafs have no particular grounds for complaint.  There may be
important things that oafs are better at than smart and studious boys.

Of course, if the smart boys do succeed, that's OK too.
-- 
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
"Rem tene; verba sequentur."  (Cato)
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Women in Mathematics: One Final Thought
Date: 11 Dec 1992 22:13:57 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:

>Many women look quite attractive with no makeup, and there is no
>social -requirement- for sytled hair. 

You've never lived in Southern California, have you?
There's cities here where they'll run you out of town 
for split ends.  Of course, in Berkeley you can get 
arrested for wearing the wrong kind of loincloth.

					:-)



Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: Women in Mathematics: One Final Thought
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 17:02:50 GMT

starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu (starbuck) writes:
 
>I wouldn't knock Jenny Craig.  She provides a needed service to the community. 
>The service provided is both therapeutic and educational.  The program is
>desinged for those who are overweight ( an unhealthy condision ) to lose 
>weight over time while learning how to put together a heathy diet for 
>themselves to maintain a healthy body.  Granted that the motivation of 
>people is to look and feel good, but is that so wrong?  Oh, by the way 
>many men are clients of Jenny Craig.

Essentially, she's a snake oil salesman... err... "salesperson."  
There is precious little evidence that her product works.

rini
Newsgroups: alt.feminism