HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cjmchale@dsg.cs.tcd.ie (Ciaran McHale)
Subject: Re: Understanding
Organization: DSG, Dept. of Computer Science, Trinity College Dublin
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:03:29 GMT

In <1992Dec21.164632.9398@infodev.cam.ac.uk>
gdb15@grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry) writes:
>I think Ciaran and I may be slightly at cross-purposes here.  I'm viewing
>"understanding" in this context as primarily an emotional thing, whereas
>he's viewing it as primarily an intellectual thing.  I think that's what
>forms the basis of our disagreement.  There's a sort of emotional
>understanding which is just reacting to people's feelings on a gut
>level, quite independently of any sort of intellectual content.
>Maybe if I use "empathy" for the first and "comprehension" for
>the second it'll help to clear things up.

I think that sums up our differences quite well. Having recognised this,
I don't think there is much else left to discuss since I don't think a
discussion about whether or not "empathy" is more important than
"comprehension" would be fruitful. As such, I won't be responding to the
bulk of your posting, but rather to just a few odds and ends which we
may be able to tidy up.

>[on reading books]
>>>That's certainly very useful if you want to gain an appreciation of
>>>the experiences of women *in general*, but it's not the same as
>>>relating on an individual level.
>>
>>My point was that reading such books might help you understand the
>>general concepts. If you can manage that then it should help quite a lot
>>if/when a person tries to relate their own specific story. Besides, very
>>often, men want to understand the general issues rather than the
>>specifics of one woman's experiences. In this case, the book will be
>>just as suited (probably more so) as hearing one woman tell her specific
>>story.
>
>I agree -- but we're back to comprehension rather than empathy.  The
>two are both worthwhile, but they're completely different.  Ideally
>you need both -- one is no substitute for the other.

My point is that comprehension can aid empathy, at least for me.
Certainly, I can empathise much better if I have a comprehension of the
issues. Your mileage seems to vary in this regard (you can empathise
with or without comprehension).

>>Let me rephrase the above into the following dialogue.
>>
>>	Man:	Please tell me about what it's like to suffer sexual
>>		harassment on a daily basis.
>
>Whoa, stop.  Do you *really* ask women questions like this?  If that's
>really all you want to know, then yes, go and buy a book on it.  But
>I want to understand people as people, not as case studies.

The question isn't whether I, personally, ask questions like that.
Rather, the question is whether such questions get asked. From my
experience, the answer is Yes.


Ciaran.
-- 
---- Ciaran McHale (cjmchale@dsg.cs.tcd.ie)
\bi/ Department of Computer Science, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland.
 \/  Telephone: +353-1-7021539 FAX: +353-1-6772204
Xref: sparky soc.bi:17066 soc.motss:53282
From: arodgers@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Angus H Rodgers)
Newsgroups: soc.bi,soc.motss
Subject: Re: Liberty (was something relevant about CO-2 long ago...)
Date: 21 Dec 92 19:07:19 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London

In <BzMCGn.2HsA@austin.ibm.com>
alan@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (Alan R. Weiss) writes:

>In article <1992Dec21.114848.11713@panix.com>
>mara@panix.com (Mara Chibnik) writes:
>>[...]
>>Feminism is not (especially) designed as a re-education program for
>>men, but as an empowerment program for women.  It is not my job, as
>>a feminist, to use my time and energy in the education of clueless
>>men, although I have been known to spend considerable time doing
>>just that when I encounter a man who shows some signs of being
>>responsive. 

>Any philosophy that excludes nearly half the human race is,
>by my definition, untenable. 

Illogical, Captain!

Do, please, stop and think before posting again: because you really
are missing Mara's point here. 

She's not excluding the clueless; they exclude themselves (by
definition).

(If you won't take it from her, then please take it from me: because
if she were saying what you take her to be saying, I would feel just
as you do; but she isn't, and I don't.)

>But you just contradicted yourself.

Uh-uh.

>You can't have it both ways:  either feminists have an outreach
>program for clueless men, or they don't.

They don't. Nor should they. The clueless are unreachable, by
definition. ...

Correction: You do have a point here. Humour, rhetoric, or
(if you really must put it this way) "marketing", may succeed
where a confrontational, or even a rational, approach, fails.

>If this STILL pisses you off, Mara, then we have nothing left to
>discuss, I'm afraid.

I don't pretend to know what's going on here: your posts don't
infuriate me. But they have been too numerous today. Try reading
more carefully, and writing less, for the time being.

>>  I'm saying that the problem with what Brad
>>has written is that he's gone so far as to say that he cannot see
>>any other important purpose to feminism.  That's not all that far
>>from dismissing women's reactions about the so-called "inclusive
>>masculine" pronouns.

>I didn't get that from what he wrote.  Can you be specific?

It's perfectly clear from the paragraph he wrote, which everybody
has been quoting back at him (and which isn't typical of his
message as a whole). Just re-read it.
--
Gus Rodgers,  Dept. of Computer Science, |  [Profound thought for 1993]
Queen Mary & Westfield College, Mile End |     "Philishave is about
Road, London, England.   +44 71 975 5241 |      personal choice" 
E-mail (JANET):   arodgers@dcs.qmw.ac.uk |             -- TV advert
Newsgroups: soc.bi,soc.motss
From: alan@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (Alan R. Weiss)
Subject: Re: Liberty (was something relevant about CO-2 long ago...)
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 15:38:16 GMT
Organization: (speaking only for myself from Austin, Texas)

In article <BzJ5Mw.KKG@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>In article <1992Dec19.212201.5955@tc.cornell.edu> shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) writes:
>
>>In article <BzInI2.7Bn@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>>
>>>Not in my experience, she doesn't.  However, she has observed that the
>>>most clueless, inappropriate, and nonsensical suggestions are proposed
>>>almost exclusively by men.
>>
>>And she finds smug, patronizing attitudes wrapped around
>>these suggestions particularly tiresome, especially when
>>they come from nitwits who admit that the entire issue is
>>not a priority from them.
>
>But it's not a priority for *anyone*, silly!  It's true!  Alan said
>so!
>
>-- 
>____ Tim Pierce                / 
>\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
> \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 


Hey, Tim and Melinda:  wake up && smell the deficit.  Most people
are motivated by far more prosaic concerns these days - the
economy, the deficit, mass starvations, mass genocide.  If you
want to compete for mindspace, you gotta compete against those concerns.

If I said "anyone", my mistake:  I should have said, "the majority
of people."  If you dispute this, whip out your Gallup Poll!

Regards from the Same Side of the Battle,

Alan
-- 
   _  Alan R. Weiss   IBM AWS Austin-AIX Kernel   11501 Burnet Rd, Bld 905
 _| ~-. alan%auntbea.austin.ibm.com@ibmpa.awdpa.ibm.com | Austin, TX 78758
 \, *_} auntbea.austin.ibm.com!alan@ibmpa.awdpa.ibm.com | 512-838-8281
   \(   DISCLAIMER:  Working at, not speaking for, IBM  | alan@auntbea
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: More words stuff
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 02:06:50 +0000

	From: idx009@cck.coventry.ac.uk (the Crisco Kid)

	>um ... us. After all, one has to reach all the clueless (pseudo-)
	>intellectuals, as well as all the clueless ignorami.

	That was a joke, wasn't it?  Inflecting "ignoramus" as though it
	were a Latin noun?  If not, FYI, [pace Tim Pierce] "ignoramus"
	is a first-person plural verb form: "we do not know".  It can't
	be pluralised.

Tom Limoncellus came out with a brilliant one the other day.  I wish I'd
saved it.  In fact, it was so good I may go back and look for it.

G
From: J.W.Harley@newcastle.ac.uk (Jon Harley)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Lurkers
Date: 23 Dec 92 14:06:05 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

sthor@ctp.com (Sarah Thornburg) writes:

>shelly@rachel.ibmpcug.co.uk (Shelly DelVeccio) writes:
>>rsr@soda.berkeley.edu (Roy S. Rapoport) writes:
>>>So I may inspire different people to mail me than you, Graham ... 
>>
>>My recent de-muffinning was followed by three lurker-type mail messages
>>(remember I've been reading for a year and know the regulars' names by
>>heart), and two of them were *real doozies*. So maybe you're just luckier,
>>Roy...;-)
>
>You know, it might be useful to get that new copy of the FAQ out and posted
>regularly, because I think alot of the lurkers, especially the new ones
>*really* have no clue what is and is not appropriate.
>...
>I haven't yet gotten any requests for hot sex, email or otherwise, from
>unknowns, but have gotten requests on how to go about posting for such.
>...

Hmm, strange isn't it? I've never had any like that; all the muffins to
whom I've talked by e-mail have been nice, quiet, sensitive types. Suits
me fine.

>So that *might* cut down on some of the problems, or at least give some
>information out there to people who want it so that there isn't as much
>email with the same questions over and over.

Is there a demand, then, for me to start posting the FAQ "bi-monthly"? :-)


//jon
   ___________________ ____ ________________________________________
  / -- Jonathan Harley \  /_    And they covered up the sun        //    //  //
 / J.W.Harley@ncl.ac.uk \/ /   until the birds had flown away...  // // //////
/_Phone:UK 091 222 8504__\/___________________________________///////////  //
From: csrwg@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Jeff Smith - X25)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Just testing...
Date: 22 Dec 1992 13:44:28 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

Checking the address.
			Kay (in yet another disguise)
Newsgroups: soc.bi,soc.motss
From: leecr@microsoft.com (Lee Crocker)
Subject: Re: Liberty (was something relevant about CO-2 long ago...)
Date: 19 Dec 92 01:10:50 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <HR3PVB5w165w@Micor.OCUnix.on.ca> panda@Micor.OCUnix.on.ca (Elizabeth Holden) writes:
>One of my problems with Libertarian talk is that they tend to use phrases 
>like "feeding himself and his family".   In other words, just about every 
>Libertarian thinker seems to have been mascuine, patriarchal, and 
>traditional in thinking.  (Ha!  Bet Libertarians aren't often accused of 
>being "too traditional"!)

Alas, I was born a white male to a family of Southern Baptist Mississippi
rednecks, and while I like to think I escaped with an open mind, my
upbringing sometimes catches up with me.  There are plenty of non-traditional
folks in the LP, but most of the ones with the loudest voices are
guilty of traditional mindsets as you say.  This is also caused by our
reliance on the writings of Thomas Jefferson, Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill,
and other founders of libertarian thought that lived in a very patriarchal
age.  Some of the things Jefferson said about women are pretty awful.

>> >is an idealistic vision we admit; but funny thing--the more we work
>
>No, it doesn't sound idealistic to me.  I don't like laws and governments 
>either but Libertarians always sound to me like Social Darwinists - a 
>point of view that terrifies me.  

If by "Social Darwinism" you mean the belief that people who work
harder deserve to live better on the fruits of their labor, then again,
guilty as charged.  Nature can be cruel, and libertarians respect the
basic facts of nature that humans have to work to live, fight to
defend themselves, and compete for resources.  We just want to move
the competition from warfare to free enterprise.
-- 
Lee Daniel Crocker    | Free minds; free bodies; free trade.
leecr@microsoft.com   | Libertarian Party  1-800-682-1776
From: cjmchale@dsg.cs.tcd.ie (Ciaran McHale)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Attack of the Seperatists
Date: 21 Dec 92 14:40:11 GMT
Organization: DSG, Dept. of Computer Science, Trinity College Dublin

In <1992Dec20.183234.27291@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> arodgers@dcs.qmw.ac.uk
(Angus H Rodgers) writes:
>cjmchale@dsg.cs.tcd.ie (Ciaran McHale) writes:
>>I disagree that that any X movement is defined in terms of non-X. For
>>example, I don't think that any GLB (or a subset thereof) movement is
>>defined in terms of straight people. 
>
>Surely it is? If there was no unjust imposition of a heterosexual norm,
>there would be no need for a GLB movement to resist its imposition

If I were to define something, let's call it Foo, in terms of, say,
widgets then it would suggest that widgets are fundamental and important
to Foo. To me, and I would think a lot of others too, one of the most
important things about a queer movement is us queers, ourselves. Thus,
we define the queer movement in terms of ourselves. If, instead, we
defined it in terms of heterosexuality then it would suggest two things:
(i) that heterosexuality is a more integral part in our movement
that us, ourselves; and (ii) if we define ourselves in terms of
heterosexuality then presumably this means we are defining ourselves as
not(heterosexual) or *anti*-heterosexual.

(i) smacks of "homosexuality is inferior to heterosexuality". 'Nuff said.
(ii) smacks of "homsexuality is destructive because it is opposed to
heterosexuality." I strongly disagree with this; all sexualities should
be able to coexist, and complement each other.

Now, if you changed the word "heterosexuality" to "heterosexism" (the
belief that heterosexuality is the only correct way to be) then, yes,
you could define the queer movemement in terms of it. Certainly, the
queer movement is anti-heterosexist (but that is a far cry from saying
that it is anti-heterosexual) and there would not be a queer movement if
it were not for heterosexism.

I think the confusion about whether or not the queer movement can be
defined in terms of heterosexuality (or feminism can be defined in terms
of men) is a confusion of the terms "heterosexuality" and "heterosexism"
(ditto for "men" and "patriarchy").

The same logic applies to feminism. It cannot, IMO, be defined in terms
of men. It can however be defined in terms of patriarchy.

As for whether one would want to define the queer movement in terms of
(a) queers (i.e., ourselves) or (b) (anti-)heterosexism...
[ditto for defining feminism in terms of (a) women or (b) (anti-)patriarchy]
The first suggests that you think of the movement as being empowering
and establishing pride in one's self-identity; the second suggests a
more activist bent. I think both definitions are valid and complementary.
I view them as being different tactics/viewpoints towards the same basic
goals.


Ciaran.
-- 
---- Ciaran McHale (cjmchale@dsg.cs.tcd.ie)
\bi/ Department of Computer Science, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland.
 \/  Telephone: +353-1-7021539 FAX: +353-1-6772204
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Understanding
Date: 22 Dec 92 17:52:57 GMT
	<1992Dec20.192301.1250@infodev.cam.ac.uk>
	<1992Dec21.152115.510@dsg.cs.tcd.ie>
	<1992Dec22.141030.16600@thelema.uucp>
	<92357.110706SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
	<MUFFY.92Dec22111050@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<1992Dec2
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: gdb15@grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk's message of 22 Dec 92 19:37:47 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.193747.3007@infodev.cam.ac.uk> gdb15@grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry) writes:
>>That is (grossly
>>generalizing here), if you say "all men are scum," a man is likely to
>>respond "why are you saying I'm scum."  If you say "women can't do
>>math," a woman is likely to say "what a ridiculous stereotype."  

>Unfair.  Saying that a group of people can't do mathematics is a
>meaningful claim that can be refuted, whereas saying they're scum is
>just a blanket insult, so it's hardly surprising if people are
>offended by it.  If I said to a woman "women are scum", I think she'd
>have a right to feel personally offended.

*smile*...you're right, the example was not parallel.  However, if you
*did* say to me "all women are scum," I still would not take it
personally.  I would probably not bother to argue with you (*grin*),
though.

>On the other hand, if
>someone said to me "men can't look after children" (or pick your
>favourite stereotyped female activity), I could attempt to refute
>the stereotype.

You could, but would you?  What about if someone said something like
"I'm so angry about the way men treat women like sex objects"?  (Posting
on this from the other side to come...*smile*.)  Would your response be
"but *I* don't do that"?

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
From: pooh+@cs.cmu.edu (Will Timmins)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Het males & bi-femmes
Date: 31 Dec 92 20:15:16 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.C0549I.Fsw.1
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

Re three way interaction:

Well, one person has a simple relationship with hirself.
Two people have a variety of interactions between them-
	How does A relate to B? (A->B)
	How does B relate to A? (B->A)
	How does the PAIR hold? (A=B)
Three people?
	A->B, B->A; B->C, C->B; C->A, A->C
	A=B; B=C; C=A Simple so far... now we get complex...

	(A=B)->C, A=B->C, B=A->C, A=B<-C, B=A<-C
	Explanation: First is how the pair interacts with the third.
	Second is the relationship of the pair with how B relates to C.
	Fourth is the relationship of the AB pair with how C relates to B.
	Multiply by three... (Shifting the pair- AB, BC, AC)
Then,
	Relationship between each pair (AB, BC, AC), relationship as a triad, 
and so forth.

Why all this nonsense? Just a thought experiment. This is the best argument 
against polyamory- things get TREMENDOUSLY complex very quickly.

Of course, the best responce is that any friends you have also create such a
complex matrix...

Thoughts from
-Me

-- 
[Pooh Bear incarnate.                                             ]
[H1 C+ F+ W G+ K+ S+ R- E+ P                                      ]
[                                                                 ]
[To email, please make sure to mail to pooh@seismo.soar.cs.cmu.edu]
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: idx009@cck.coventry.ac.uk (the Crisco Kid)
Subject: Re: Selective Memory?
Organization: Eris's Restaurant
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 13:25:08 GMT

In article <29779@castle.ed.ac.uk> angi@castle.ed.ac.uk (Angi Lamb) writes:
>sara@festival.ed.ac.uk (Swamp Thing) writes:
>
>|gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal) writes:
>
>|>dbshapco@napier.uwaterloo.ca (Brad Shapcott) writes:
>|>:evidence, and to the flip ego posturing dominating many posts.  Well,
>|>:the first thing I would like to know is, am I the only one that feels this?
>
>|>No.
>
>|And neither is he.
>
>Ditto

Me too.  It's them Americans and them motssers that have done it.

				Kay

-- 
6'2", dark short hair, blue eyes, bisexual and horny as ....
Kay Dekker, Dept of Industrial Design, Coventry University, Coventry UK
37 Old Winnings Road, Keresley Village, Coventry   |B0 f t+ g++ k++! s+ e r p!
Phone: +44 203 838668 (work) +44 203 337865 (home) |Deflowerer-of-innocents
Newsgroups: soc.bi,soc.motss
From: smoir@world.std.com (Scott A Moir)
Subject: NPR to cover Colorado boycott tonight
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 15:38:54 GMT

NPR will have a story on the boycott of Colorado buisnesses on its 'All
Things Considered' program this evening. (Announced by the local NPR
affiliate WRUR radio in Boston.)

Be listening...

Scott
From: arodgers@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Angus H Rodgers)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Help! I've been killfiled and I can't get out!
Date: 22 Dec 92 13:54:45 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London

In <1992Dec22.124900.28495@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>
arodgers@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Angus H Rodgers) writes:

>them publically is *definitely* not a good idea, under any 
      ^^^^^^^^^^
>your victim publically flailing about trying to reply.)
             ^^^^^^^^^^
Proof (if any more were needed) that I should take my own advice
to Alan, and (proof-)read more carefully, and write less for a while.

I'm sorry about yesterday. I'll try to be less of a nuisance to soc.bi
today. (Difficult, because my sick marriage appears to be in its death
throes, and I can't seem to stop twitching publically ... er ...)
--
Gus Rodgers,  Dept. of Computer Science, |  [Profound thought for 1993]
Queen Mary & Westfield College, Mile End |     "Philishave is about
Road, London, England.   +44 71 975 5241 |      personal choice" 
E-mail (JANET):   arodgers@dcs.qmw.ac.uk |             -- TV advert
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: eleanor@cbnews.cb.att.com (Piglet)
Subject: Re: Attack of the Seperatists (was Re: Roy's "consenting" slave)
Organization: aardvark-vanaheim (not really)
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 14:41:31 GMT

In article <1gsoicINN38s@rave.larc.nasa.gov> kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov (Scott Dorsey) writes:
>In article <1992Dec17.211137.13492@dsg.cs.tcd.ie> cjmchale@dsg.cs.tcd.ie (Ciaran McHale) writes:
>>
>>By the way, I'm a Computer Scientist, but if you're going to work
>>alphabetically then I might change career and become an Aardvark
>>Specialist (whatever that might be) :-)
>
>Aardvark says she'd be delighted.

And what does Cerebus say?


Jaka....
From: pmm7@ellis.uchicago.edu (peggy boucher murphy (you had to ask?))
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Het males & bi-fems
Date: 31 Dec 92 00:12:25 GMT
Reply-To: pmm7@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <92364.174655U23700@uicvm.uic.edu> <U23700@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>as to whether or not hetero women think of bi-triangles as m-f-m,
>a close female friend i've known for a long time has said she always
>thought of this (m-f-m and all permutations possible).

a lot of het men must like the idea, too.  i've seen a
lot of it in straight porn (although the men usually 
don't touch).  :(  <pout>

i (personally) like *both* kinds of triangles...

>also, apparently het women do fantasize about watching 2 men get it
>on, although they didn't always. my friend was very interested to find
>in the new nancy friday book 'women on top' that watching 2 men and
>perhaps joining them is a new idea in women's fantasies, not present
>in ms. friday's previous collections and analysis of women's sexual
>fantasies, 'my secret garden' and 'forbidden flowers' (both from the
>middle/late 1970s). her thesis in this latest book is that the women's
>movement, sexual revolution, etc., have spawned changes in the types
>of fantasies women now allow themselves to have. my friend, who thought
>she must be rather odd when not finding her m-f-m fantasies in the first
>2 books, was exultant to find that other women now have these kinds of
>fantasies, and that she was not the only 'weird' het female who had
>these fantasies.

<grin>  i really have to read this book.  

peg