HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
From: royce@mdcbbs.com (Royce D. Myers EDS/Unigraphics)
Date: 9 Nov 92 12:27:23 GMT
 <1992Nov4.200004.23740@netcom.com> <Bx9rsE.K7z@world.std.com>
Organization: EDS Unigraphics, Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: royce

In article <Bx9rsE.K7z@world.std.com>, marty@world.std.com (Marty M HaleEvans) writes:
>
> and how you define "eating disorder". Don't forget that much of what this 
> society views as normal behavior is actually very unhealthy; many people are
> quite healthy at higher weights than are often considered "normal", and the
> way women (and, to a lesser extent, men) view food and eating habits is just
> bizarre. Basically, we expect women to be following unhealthy eating habits,
> reward her if she does and revile her if she doesn't. 

While I don't want to encourage the belief that _severely_ undereating is a
good idea, people in the U.S. eat entirely too much.  Not an opinion:

- Check out what USRDA for calories is; compare that with actual consumption.
  We eat far more than we need.

- USRDA for fat is %30; most nutritionists recommend under %20.  Average
consumption in US is %37. (percent of calories)  Not only are we eating more
calories than we need, these calories are eaten in the least healthy form.

-(an aside): when calories remained constant, but fat intake dropped to %20
from over %30, subjects lost weight.

- According to U. C. Berkeley Wellness Letter and the LA Times, the only proven
way to extend one's life span is to reduce one's caloric intake.

While anorexia and bulemia are problems, the number of people with these
disorders are _several orders of magnitude_ smaller than the numbers of those
who are over fat.  And overeating is much more harmful than undereating.

-- 
Royce Myers			
royce@mdcbbs.com
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 20:36:53 GMT

biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel) writes:
>mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:

>>>Yes, the old "oppressed people cannot be x-ist" argument.
 
>>No it isn't.  
 
>>Apparently, you tried very hard to read something into what I wrote
>>that was clearly not there.
 
>Actually, I didn't try very hard at all. The gist of the deleted part
>of your post made a comparison with racist jokes, leading to this
>interpretation.

Okay, so you misinterpretted me by accident.  

>>What I'm saying is that it may not be very meaningful to compare
>>a bikini calendar of women to a Chippendale's calendar of men.  
>>Maybe it would be *more* useful to compare a bikini calendar 
>>of women to a calendar of bachelor men which listed their 
>>incomes, assets, and number of credit cards.  
> 
>I see: you're trying to make a case for different valuation standards
>for men and women. I agree, they differ. If you choose to label this
>difference as sexist you can. However, for me at least, sexism implies
>not only different standards, but denigration of one sex with respect to the
>other. 

I agree that the kind of sexism that is bad is the kind that leads
to denigration of one sex with respect to the other.

>To observe a difference, or to treat people differently based upon
>their sex is not sexist IMO unless people suffer from such differences in
>treatment.

I can go with that.  

>There are, of course, numerous feminists who disagree with this view, and
>who would argue for (almost) completely sex-blind treatment of people. 

I don't see how wanting sex-blind treatment disagrees with this 
view...  Can you explain?

(One qualifier might be in order -- I believe that these feminists want
sex-blind treatment of people when it is clear that sex has no bearing
on the ability to perform a particular role.)

>>If the world was as full of Chippendale's calendars as it is full 
>>of calendars of scantily clad women, I think it'd be silly to conclude
>>that the sexism has now simply doubled.  Instead, this would be a
>>convincing indicator to suggest that isn't a sexist world anymore at
>>all.
>
>I would see it as more evidence that our overheated consumer society has
>latched onto yet another fad and/or created "need", much along the lines
>of the continuing "beauty myth" thread. 

Me too.  There's a huge market in making people want to change themselves.
Good way to make a buck.

rini
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: A GREAT Night for Americans! (Women especially!)
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: usa 
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 18:33:03 GMT

In <1992Nov4.201036.21878@mr.med.ge.com> kranitz@mr.med.ge.com (Wes Kranitz 4-6857 MRCE) writes:

>Yes, Sue. It was a great night for America and for women in particular. We
>have a long way to go, but at least its a start.

>Wes

Every journey starts with a single step. We Marylanders are
happy with the outcome (well, 62% of us are :-) ) and if the
other 38% are'nt too bad.

However, we don't intend to relax, maybe just take 10 to
catch our breath a little.

Bob.

Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 15:30:30 GMT

In article <5NOV92.16052284@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>In a previous article, beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) wrote:
>>In article <1992Nov4.181144.5546@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> jrmo@volta.att.com (J.R.Moore) writes:
>>>rlt@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (r l taylor) writes:
>>>
>>>By all means, any husbands who may be tricked into raising children conceived
>>>by another man, take the child in for genetic testing, but what does that
>>>have to do with notification for abortion?  Do you want genetic testing
>>>on the fetus?
>> 
>>"By all means," how?
>> 
>>If there is a dispute, then:
>> 
>>1.  The father denies fatherhood and demands a paternity test.
>>If it's negative, he "wins."  If it's positive, he will have
>>severely reduced his chances for custody.  ("If you doubt your
>>child is yours *and* you want to escape your responsibilities,
>>then how can I expect you to be a good parent?" asks the judge.)

>This has to do with born children.

Yes.  My objection was clearly against "take the CHILD in" (emphasis added).

...

>Again, this has to do with children.  If a woman aborts there is no child, 
>and therefore no risk of paying child support. 

If the bomb doesn't go off, he won't be injured, so who care's
if he knows it's there?

What if the man wants to divorce her (because he *suspects* she
doesn't want children) and to marry someone else and start a family?
How can a man plan his reproductive future if he is liable for
surprise bills, without having any opportunity for full information
or any equal opportunity to choose?


In any given 9-month period, a man *could* be facing paternity.

Why should men have a 9-month waiting period to make their own
reproductive decisions?


>I really don't see what any of these situations have to do with women who 
>do not wish to notify their lover(s) that she is having an abortion.  

Nobody suggested she should notify her lovers.

She only needs to do that if one of them has deep pockets.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: rfs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (richard.f.j.soyack)
Subject: Re: Am I "exploiting" this woman?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 14:29:05 GMT

This whole thing started because some guy saw some woman at a
party wearing clothes he found stimulating.  When I read this,
and now, my first thought was why didn't he go up and talk to
her?  That's what I would have done.

Have fun,
Rich Soyack

Xref: sparky soc.women:19119 talk.politics.theory:4796 sci.philosophy.tech:3964 sci.philosophy.meta:2413 sci.classics:937
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Date: 8 Nov 92 15:54:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: remarque.MUFFY.92Nov8075453
	<1992Nov7.171526.5511@wam.umd.edu>
	<1992Nov7.192650.19040@leland.Stanford.EDU>
	<1992Nov8.004801.28326@ils.nwu.edu>
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: lynch@ils.nwu.edu's message of Sun, 8 Nov 1992 00:48:01 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.004801.28326@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>In article <1992Nov7.192650.19040@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>>What we are seeing is more men being affected by this need to be
>>physically perfect too. [...] 
>>I'm sure some people think turn about is fair play,
>>but I don't want men saddled with these unreal expectations.  I don't
>>want to see a very skinny 12 year old boy talk about how fat he is.

>Well, at least we're *all* getting #@$%^&! up by the media, not just women.
>Ain't much of an improvement, is it?

Pretty depressing.  It might be an improvement...maybe once it is
happening to everyone, men will stop saying that it's just a problem of
women, who have no sense of  humor or appreciation of art, and will try
to join women and *do* something about it.  Actually, probably not...but
I can always hope.

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
~Weavers' fingers flying on the loom/patterns shift too fast to be
 discerned/all these years of thinking/ended up like this/in front
 of all this beauty/understanding nothing~ - Bruce Cockburn
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 21:09:26 GMT

In article <8NRSBNNV@cc.swarthmore.edu> auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer) writes:

[lots gone]

>Did I mispell your name?

I guess so.  How you went from lynch to tochlin is beyond me, though.

[more gone]


>In cases of abuse, there is often a lot of pressure upon the woman including
>the pressure of reporting the abuse to often callous police and fear of
>retribution by the abuser.  Abuse and rape are difficult to establish.  In
>such cases father's notification can be tragic.

I am not indifferent to these issues, and have already stated that there have
to be clearly established exceptions if father notification were the rule.
You have yet to convince me that father notification as a rule with exceptions
is wrong.
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Xref: sparky soc.women:19283 soc.men:19047
From: asgard@plx.com (J.R. Stoner)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Mil-spec Boobs: was A GREAT Night for Americans!  (Women especially!)
Keywords: n
Date: 11 Nov 92 01:43:00 GMT
Organization: Heironamous Botch's Murk Works

In article <1992Nov9.234831.7188@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
_Clintion's support of the proposal of even yet more funding for Breast Cancer
_research seems to me to be clearly discriminatory, given the fact that it is
_funded at 2.5x the death rate of other forms of cancer research, and is
_rising above that already high figure.

And is being funded as a line-item in the defense department budget.  Go figure.
-- 
J.R. Stoner, DWMIT - asgard@plx.com - sun.com!plx!plxsun!asgard
Xref: sparky soc.women:18985 soc.men:18796
From: falk@peregrine.Sun.COM (Ed Falk)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: A GREAT Night for Americans!  (Women especially!)
Date: 6 Nov 92 22:17:57 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: peregrine

In article <1992Nov5.184032.1539@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
>
>A friend has been trying to convince me that Clinton might not be as bad
>for men ... as I think he is.

Why the assumption that anything good for women is automatically bad
for men?

		-ed falk, sun microsystems
		 sun!falk, falk@sun.com
To be loyal to rags, to shout for rags, to worship rags, to die for rags 
-- that is a loyalty of unreason, it is pure animal (Mark Twain).
Xref: sparky soc.women:19462 alt.feminism:4296 soc.men:19194
From: pepke@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Fifty-nine cents
Date: 11 Nov 92 18:00:26 GMT
Reply-To: pepke@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Followup-To: soc.women
Organization: Florida State University, but I don't speak for them

In article <JULIE.92Nov10193201@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu> julie@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu (Julie Wright) writes:
> (somebody else writes):
>>The way this statistic is commonly presented attempts to imply that a
>>woman working the same job as a man can expect to make only 59% as much.
>>This is what the quote under discussion tries to refute.
>
>It's usually presented simplistically, certainly, but I don't remember
>hearing anyone saying that it applied to a woman "working the same job"
>as a man (on average).

I've seen that exact claim at least a dozen times in the last couple of years.
If you like, I can point it out to you the next time it occurs.  Let me know.

>Exactly.  The argument I've seen is that women are often directed (by direct
>discrimination, by discrimination in early training (e.g. being shunted
>into secretarial courses in school or discouraged from taking math), or
>by societal expectations) into "pink collar" jobs -- jobs traditionally
>held by women -- which are low-paying.

I tend to think that it is more complex than than "encouragement" and
"discouragement," but all that can be lumped into "societal expectations."
Approximately, though, this is probably an accurate description of reality.

So why is it that about 99.44% of the time the proposed solution is to
force employers to make all the numbers come out even?  I know of at least
two reasons.

1) In order to challenge pre-university shooling, where a lot of basic 
   attitudes, talents, and proclivities are formed, it is necessary to 
   go head-to-head with a profession that is almost entirely dominated
   by women.

2) In order to challenge attitudes taught informally, it is necessary 
   to go head-to-head with primary care givers, most of whom are women.

Both of these are political hot potatoes and pose potential ideological
problems for feminists that are difficult to face.  The result is that,
quite a lot of the time, the matter is NOT faced and all of the problem
is presumed to lie with employers.

(Of course, another point is that it's not $0.59.  In 1985 it was about
 $0.65, and I read in a newspaper article in the Tallahassee Democrat 
 about 3 years ago that it was $0.73.  Why advocates of the statistic 
 continue to use a figure that is two decades old is left as an exercise 
 for the reader.)

-EMP
P.S. Notice that since Dan Quayle people are misspelling "potatoes" as
"potatos"?
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: A GREAT Night for Americans!  (Women especially!)
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 18:40:32 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.201036.21878@mr.med.ge.com> kranitz@mr.med.ge.com (Wes Kranitz 4-6857 MRCE) writes:
)Yes, Sue. It was a great night for America and for women in particular. We
)have a long way to go, but at least its a start.

PFFFFT!

A friend has been trying to convince me that Clinton might not be as bad
for men (not to mention the national debt) as I think he is.  Here's hoping
he's right and I'm wrong.

Xref: sparky soc.women:19154 alt.feminism:4019 soc.men:18941
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Entry level salaries (was: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Date: 9 Nov 92 08:23:55
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1992Nov6.150355.9849@rtf.bt.co.uk>
	<1992Nov7.213707.15211@fid.morgan.com>
	<9NOV199210165558@mary.fordham.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: nissim@mary.fordham.edu's message of Mon, 9 Nov 1992 14:16:00 GMT

In article <9NOV199210165558@mary.fordham.edu> nissim@mary.fordham.edu (Leonard J. Nissim) writes:
>In article <1992Nov7.213707.15211@fid.morgan.com>, 
>sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes...
>[stuff about MacPherson calendars deleted]
>> 
>>More recently, I've seen statistics that when men and women have the
>>same level of education and experience, they earn about the same.  The
>>only reference I have is that in the most recent salary survey taken
>>by the MAA that I've seen (probably a year or two old), women with new
>>PhD's in math earned more, on average, than men with new PhD's in math.

>Here are the *new* statistics (from the November 1992 issue of "Notices of 
>the American Mathematical Society"):
>9-month academic salaries of people with new Ph.D.'s in mathematics:
>(`new' means granted during the 1991/92 academic year) 
>Median salary for men----$34,000  (interquartile range--31,000 to 36,000)
>Median salary for women--$34,900  (interquartile range--33,000 to 37,100)
>Note that women earn over $1.02 for each $1 earned per man.  

Well, if you're reading stuff from the American Mathematical Society, I
would think you would know that the "median" is the number which falls
in the middle of a sorted list of numbers.  This is not the same as the
"mean" or average.  For example, suppose that the salaries in question
are:

women: 33,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 34,900 34,900 34,900 34,900 37,100
men:   31,000 34,000 34,000 34,000 34,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000

In this example, the *medians* are as given above.  The *mean*, however,
is:

women: 34,300
men: 34,555

So, as the median is just one salary figure, all you can say is that
that particular woman makes more than that particular man.  To come up
with the "women make X for each $1 earned *per* man," you have to use
the mean, which is the average salary *per* man or woman.  How about
running back to those figures and posting the mean?  And the number of
people in each group?

Thanks...

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
~Weavers' fingers flying on the loom/patterns shift too fast to be
 discerned/all these years of thinking/ended up like this/in front
 of all this beauty/understanding nothing~ - Bruce Cockburn
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: krw@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (keith.r.smith)
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 16:28:26 GMT

In article <MUFFY.92Nov11075211@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <11NOV199210045505@mary.fordham.edu> nissim@mary.fordham.edu (Leonard J. Nissim) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov11.070434.14395@dragon.acadiau.ca>, 
>				> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>Nobody ever put a gun to my head and said "Watch this or else!"  
>>Every television set I've ever seen has an "off" switch.
>
>No billboard I have seen has an "off" switch.  Shall I stop going to
>work to avoid the ads?  No newspaper has an "off" switch.  Should I not
>read newspapers?  Magazines contain ads.  Many books have ads in them,
>although these are fairly easy to skip over.  Many products have ads on
>them, and the stores you buy them in have ads everywhere.  There are
>trucks carrying billboards around to advertise cigarettes.  Regular
>transport trucks have ads.  Taxis have ads.  Buses have ads.  People
>wear t-shirts with ads.  You hear ads on the radio.  There are ads in
>some elevators.  I don't even *watch* TV and I see hundreds of ads every
>day.  The only way to escape them would be to stay in my house and avoid
>any media.  I'd rather have a semblance of a "normal" life.
>
>Muffy
>--
I guess that rules out the beach, the public swimming pool, the health club,
the nite club, the beauty parlor, the mall, any women's sporting event, the
ballet, or any other type of dance performance that might involve women, or
any other place or event where you might perchance see living, breathing human
beings that just happen to approximate the look of the women in the ads, and
therefore make you feel uncomfortable.

Get a life... Please!

Keith R
>
>Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
>~Weavers' fingers flying on the loom/patterns shift too fast to be
> discerned/all these years of thinking/ended up like this/in front
> of all this beauty/understanding nothing~ - Bruce Cockburn


Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 22:32:12 GMT

In article <1dca56INNgi7@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>
>>Uncertain parentage should be made certain.
>
>How???

I already said I dunno.  Shall we have another inequities of medical funding
war?  Please no.


>>No, after sufficient soul-searching I still believe father notification should
>>be the norm.
>
>No one is disputing that.  The question is, should it be the *law*.

With suitable exceptions, yes.
Otherwise, "abnormal" women will be depriving father's of their rights.
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
From: kurts@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Kurt Strain)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: A GREAT Night for Americans!  (Women especially!)
Date: 6 Nov 92 20:42:24 GMT
Organization: Outpost 1T

In soc.women, deannab@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Deanna Bergstrom) writes:

> I agree!  I am feeling so energized and excited....I also actually
> voted for winners this time!  And now I have 2 female US Senators
> (Feinstein and Boxer), a female Congresscritter (Lynn Woolsey) and
> a female State Assemblycritter (Valerie Brown....but this one would
> have been female no matter what as her Rep. opponent was Janet 
> Nicholas).  And other women won many of the local seats around here.

> As Feinstein said about the Senate, "2% is not enough!".  6% isn't
> enough either but at least the numbers tripled overnight!

> Deanna Bergstrom
> Santa Rosa, CA

Maybe we should have a system for punching one box, like some states have
for "straight democratic ticket" vs. "straight republican ticket", but 
now it should be "straight female ticket".  This is to save time in
the booth, of course, because people ignorant enough to vote by that kind
of principle have a hard time figuring out how to mark the little boxes. 

So if you're a "straight female ticket" voter, then congratulations and
I hope you didn't have to ask too much for assistance.
Newsgroups: soc.women