HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Subject: Gender Hostility (was Re: Feminism's Lesbian Leaders)
Organization: QQQCLC
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 19:08:55 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.224815.7390@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>In article <1993Jan6.214042.26285@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>>And on the subject of feminism, lesbianism, and man-hating, some
>>feminists claim that it is heterosexual women who are the biggest
>>man-haters of all, because who are the ones who have to live with men?
>
>I don't doubt for a moment that many feminists do indeed claim this,
>because it's absolutely zany.

	Not as zany as all that. Don't confuse "unfair" with "unlikely".

>Implicit in the assertion is: "Man-hatred
>is caused by having to spend time in the company of men, because men
>are absolute shits . Hence, het women *must* hate them, from spending so
>much time in that vile company.

	Reason it bottom-up, instead of top-down. You're a woman. Your
sweetie mistreats you. He sleeps with someone else, or treats you like
shit, whatever. You get angry, and some of that anger comes out as anger
against men, generally.

	It isn't fair, but it's very human, and the example above works
with either sex in either role. Most romantic relationships don't last a
lifetime, and when they break up, one or both of the parties is usually
angry at the other, for their perceived bad behavior. I have two friends
right now who are angry at the opposite sex because of a breakup; I see
many more examples in the gender newsgroups.

	I think it would be more accurate to say that it's women who
love men who are most inclined to get _angry_ at the male of the
species, but I don't think it's hatred. Most the time it ain't even
political. The people recognize the unfairness of getting mad at an
entire gender for the sins of an individual, and get over it. Only
occasionally does it become a political thing.

	I've said this before, and I'll say it again, because it
continues to be overlooked: the two genders have been bitching at one
another since time immemorial; since long before the birth of feminism.
And just as it would be wrong for an anti-feminist to write off all
feminist complaints as "mere gender-bitching", it is equally wrong for a
feminist to claim that every bit of resentment women have felt towards
men is evidence of the nastiness of men.

	Living as a couple is tough. His/her problems become _your_
problems, and every wart that the other person has becomes something you
live with daily. And the failure of romantic relationships rank right up
there with the death of loved ones among the worst things that happen to
us in our lives. I'd bet over 80% of the readers have had a love
relationship fail in anger, pain and recrimination. And while it's
irrational to base negative gender stereotypes on such a foundation,
it's all too human.

	Issues aside, I believe much of the _anger_ that infests these
gender debates need look no farther for its cause.

-  From the Crow's Nest  -                Kenn Barry
----------------------------------------------------------------
ELECTRIC AVENUE:    			barry@netcom.com
From: michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Feminism's Lesbian Leaders (was: Why are there only men on)
Date: 8 Jan 93 07:58:29 GMT
Organization: University of Washington
NNTP-Posting-Host: glia.biostr.washington.edu

In <1993Jan7.224815.7390@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:

>Logically, yes, that's certainly possible. But whether it is generally
>true is a separate question. Perusing various lesbian literature, it
>does NOT seem to support Loren's suggestion that their view is "Yes,
>men are OK, I guess, nothing against them, I'd just prefer a woman."
>It's more like "Die, Vile Exploiting patriarchal scum!"

Why don't you stop reading this radical bs put out by whoever and instead
go out and mean some normal lesbians.  I did.  You know what I found out?
I found out that without exception they were exactly like you and me.  The
only difference was they preferred the same sex for romance and more
physical things.  Bisexuals I met were also exactly like you and me except
that they didn't have a polarized preference.  Although some seemed to
lean one way or the other.

Perhaps that's part of why you have such strange ideas Robert.  You read
radical wierd literature instead of getting to know the average person.
Don't live in a closet and make conclusions.  Someone asked you how many
lesbians you knew.  I'm still curious to see an answer to that one.

And by the way.  I've used the word lesbian all through here because that
was the subject.  But if you want to be technical, this wasn't limited
to just women.  Gay men were just as normal as you and I also.

>>	And Robert Sheaffer, why are you so _sensitive_ about this

>Me, sensitive about *this*? Gosh, I've been giving feminsts a hard time
>about a *lot* of various absurdities. Their "Lesbian Leadership"

There is no such thing.  There are vocal people who are lesbians.  There
are vocal people who are feminists.  Some of them espouse the views
of the majority, some do not.  Some make sense, some do not.  But none
of them were "elected."  Sounds like you are having trouble with that
distinction.

>is only one of many issues. On the contrary, it seem
>that *you're* the one who is so incredibly sensitive to issues
>involving motss.

I disagree.  Seems to me you are.  I think she merely expressed questions
about what you say that many of us wonder about.

    Michael Stanley (michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Subject: Re: AA-related ramblings
Date: 10 Jan 93 09:41:24 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: na

In article <1993Jan9.154501.23918@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>| ...
>| AA is at least teaching segments of the society that had otherwise
>| never experienced discrimination based on gender what it's like. 
>| Sauce for the gander, as it were.
>| 
>| Think maybe NOW we can all agree that it's wrong?
>
>But almost no one thinks it's right or good.  The question 
>is whether it's a worse evil than the evils it is supposed 
>to cure or mitigate.  

Actually, I meant that ALL discrimination is wrong, including
state-mandated discrimination like quotas.

IE, that common implementations of AA like gender or racial
quotas is just the same wrong, different victims.

>The teaching aspect seems peripheral,

It is peripheral, which is why I had never noticed it before.

>The clever thing would be to come up a cure for the
>problems of discrimination which was neither quotizing
>affirmative action nor handwaving.

In my experience in recruiting, EOE laws can be quite 
helpful.  If you have to document that you hired the
most qualified candidate regardless of religion, race, age,
marital status, gender, or sexual orientation [my employer's
definition] then you end up spending time defining WHAT
would make an ideal candidate, an acceptable candidate,
and an unacceptable candidate. As an interviewer, this 
helps!  You also have to keep records of who was/was not
hired - and WHY, and how your decisions were based on the
job requirements.

The above is based on my experience in helping to hire 80
people over a 5-month period.

-jen

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: webber@cwis.unomaha.edu (Joan Livingston-Webber)
Subject: Re: Women DOCTORS
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 00:13:35 GMT

michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu  writes:
> In <92361.095942MIWHC@CUNYVM.BITNET> <MIWHC@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
> 
> >     I am looking for any sort of data/statistics on how patients feel about
> >women doctors. As yet, I have found nothing. I get the impression that both
> >older men and women prefer men doctors, middle-aged men prefer men doctors,
> >middle-aged women prefer women doctors and both younger men and younger
> >women prefer women doctors.
> 
> Finding a good doctor can sometimes be a difficult task.  If one
> immediately elminates half the sex, then one reduces the pool of
> good doctors he/she can choose from.  Frankly I don't see what the
> doctor's sex has to do with it.  I've been examined by men and women
> in the medical profession and feel equally comfortable with both.

Have also had many of both.  had a nasty pelvic by a female dr. (1967) and
a male dr who didn't use stirrups at all (1992).  Still, looking for a new
dr. , I want a female.  It has to do with being tired of male physician
arrogance.  I hope women retain through med school some tendancy to
see other women as equipped with some intelligence about their bodies.

Joan L-W

> 
> So I guess my answer is, "About the same as I feel about men doctors."
> 
>     Michael Stanley (michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Subject: Re: Feminism's Lesbian Leaders (was: Why are there only men on)
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 21:11:36 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.195235.23012@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>In article <1993Jan06.004608.22218@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>>
>>My point was that lesbians [women who have sexual relationships 
>>exclusively with other women] do not necessarily lack experience
>>in hetero relationships by observation or by participation.
>
>True. And the very fact that they have abandoned the "het world" and
>its lifestyle strongly suggests that they found it to be quite distasteful.
>So their advice to other women is NOT going to be "useful advice on
>how to live your life among men", but rather more like "how to shaft
>those male scum, and live like us!"

Most lesbians in my experience tried men and women and preferred women, but did
not actually dislike sex with men...
On what is your strong suggestion based, oh scepticus?


>>
>>IE, you see that if many of the leaders of the feminist movement and 
>>publishers of feminist magazines are lesbians who happen to hate hets,
>>then these lesbians will preach anti-het hate?
>
>That would seem to be a reasonable conclusion.

So far I've seen only a few examples of lesbians preaching anti-het hate, and
most of them are given maximal media attention for their wierd views.

>>No, the fact that Robert posted it doesn't automatically make it wrong.
>>
>THANK YOU! I can see that my star rises ever higher. Recently, my "right"
>to post was grudgingly conceded. Now it's even acknowledged
>that I'm *less than* 100% wrong! Hey, at this rate, sainthood can't
>be too far away!  :)

Hey, I think you posted something that was right once; forget what it was...
-- 
-- 
--
-- "TANSTAAFL"     Rich lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Why I am Not An Egalitarian
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 19:47:02 GMT

In article <1i81ffINN165@shelley.u.washington.edu> twain@milton.u.washington.edu (Barbara Hlavin) writes:
>>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>
>>>And your use of the word "intuition" makes me nervous. It's a female,
>>>non-objective thing.
>
>Intuition is not "a female thing." 

I think we have a definition problem here.

In general, I agree.

intuition n.  1) a- The faculty of knowing as if by instinct, without
  conscious reasoning. b- A perceprion based upon this faculty. 2)
  Sharp insight.

But then there is a thing known as `feminine intuition'. How this
differs from normal intuition is not clear, but the usage of the term
indicates that it is a faculty possessed only by women.

Can a women intuit without it being a result of `feminine intuition'?
You tell me.

I did not indicate the usage I intended when I posted, for which I
apologize. But I do not think that it is out of context in the original
thread, and the context has been ommitted here.

>Intuition is a human experience, and our culture's most famous 
>incidents are documented in biographies of mathematicians and 
>scientists. 
>
>Intuition is perhaps the most badly misunderstood of all the 
>human mental processes (and yes, it is a mental process).  What 
>it is *not* is some kind of "vague feeling" but rather a sudden 
>illumination when bits of knowledge that have been sitting in our 
>unconscious are catalyzed by a brand-new bit of information that 
>gives us insight particular to the problem we've been mulling 
>over and allows us to form a conclusion. 
>
>--Barbara 
>
>
>


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: jay@UUSERV.CC.UTAH.EDU (Jay Deuel)
Subject: Re: Choosing Dangerous Relationships (was: How to Protect Women)
Organization: University of Utah Computer Center
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 16:33:09 GMT

>> Or is it that you can't tell who's interested in you, in any way?
>> Or do you just feel that any man would be glad to get sexual
>> advances from any woman?
>
>Of course not, Lenore!  That should be "any woman except lesbians and
>feminists (which are the same thing, anyway)."  *grin*
>
Wrong Muffy, I think any man would appriciate sexual advances from any woman 
who would be willing to follow through (no teasing please)!  ;-)
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: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 22:54:36 GMT

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

>In article <C0nDLL.4rK@news.cso.uiuc.edu> 
>levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
>>gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:

>>Just that governmental or other nonprofit institutions *can* work.

>Please distinguish between government and nonprofit institutions;
>the government is much much stronger, and this power attracts the 
>people who abuse power.

>Anyway, a broken watch *can* show twice per day the right time,
>but usually it is pretty much useless.

I've seen quite a few government/nonprofit institutions that *do*
work reasonably well. The best seem to be better than any
private institutions I've been involved with. 

Lenore Levine
From: rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov (Michael W. Rowland)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Debate in a Vacuum!
Date: 7 Jan 1993 17:48:45 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

In article <1i9o9nINNdos@nic.umass.edu>, quilty@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Humberto 
Humbertoldi) writes:
> Path: 
> 
news.larc.nasa.gov!ames!agate!spool.mu.edu!uunet!caen!nic.umass.edu!titan.ucc.
um
> ass.edu!quilty
> From: quilty@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Humberto Humbertoldi)
> Newsgroups: alt.feminism
> Subject: Re: Debate in a Vacuum!
> Date: 4 Jan 1993 16:23:19 GMT
> Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
> Lines: 33
> Message-ID: <1i9o9nINNdos@nic.umass.edu>
> References: <1i7l1fINNbjs@rave.larc.nasa.gov>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: titan.ucc.umass.edu
> 
> In article <1i7l1fINNbjs@rave.larc.nasa.gov> rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov 
> (Michael W. Rowland) writes:
> >Up front, to let you know my reference points, 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 
> 
> You've GOT to be kidding! You seriously want *me* to give *MY* money
> to these vicious reactionaries you mention?! This kind of argument
> about how you have to read such-and-such reactionary tract before you
> can argue responsibly is just tripe.  There are 3 million books
> published in the US each year.  Frankly, I don't have any intention of
> reading all of them... and at least a good 2 million of them are
> higher on my list than the books you mention.  Given that you probably
> haven't read MOST of the two million books which are better than the
> three you mention, perhaps it is YOU who is in no position to argue on
> the boards. ^)
> -- 
Why do you call these folks "vicious reactionaries"?  As for buying 
the books, check them out at them library, instead.  
I do not close my mind to alternate viewpoints, as you seem to be doing.
I find that sad, but the tone you seem to project in this reply makes
me believe that your tiny, little mind could not hold, let alone digest,
what viewpoints are in books 2 and 3.  You are a rude person.  My post
was in good taste and well intended.  Lighten up!

Mike

Mike Rowland (Contractor),  MS 475
NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton VA 23681
internet: rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine)
Subject: Re: The BEM Test
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 16:53:21 GMT

sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:

>In article <BzzoAJ.Kwo@news.cso.uiuc.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
>>On the back of scratch paper from a campus recycling area, I found a
>>psychological test called the Bem Sex Role Inventory. This test lists
>>sixty adjectives that refer to human beings, some "masculine," some
>>"feminine," and some neutral (but you don't know which are which until
>>
>> [womens' terms: dependent. Mens': self-reliant]

>>I urge you to draw your own conclusions from this test.

>The conclusion is that psychologists have found the "sexist" terms you
>quote to accurately describe the self-perceptions (on the average) of
>women and men.

Not in my culture (Eastern European Jewish).

>Didn't Wendy say that when she was still he, his doctor gave him such
>a test to see whether he would be better off as a he or a she? Be
>careful before you go off ranting and raving over such a test; it
>may be extremely valuable to some people.

The test was not designed for such a purpose. Also, it does not
accurately reflect the way men and women are raised in Eastern
European Jewish culture. (The one I know most closely.)

Lenore Levine
From: wendy@sundown.mil.wi.us (Wendy)
Date: 5 Jan 93 04:27:44 GMT
Subject: Re: The BEM Test
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Organization: Wendy's world
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Lenore Levine (levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu) wrote:
: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
: >Didn't Wendy say that when she was still he, his doctor gave him such
: >a test to see whether he would be better off as a he or a she? Be
: >careful before you go off ranting and raving over such a test; it
: >may be extremely valuable to some people.
: 
: The test was not designed for such a purpose. Also, it does not
: accurately reflect the way men and women are raised in Eastern
: European Jewish culture. (The one I know most closely.)
: 
: Lenore Levine

I have been away for a couple of weeks on vacation so I'm getting in
on the end of this.

The test that I was given was the MMPI-2 which stands for "Minnesota
Multiphasic Personal Inventory", version two (which is the latest
available). It gives psychologists an insite to ones personality 
including female/male gender identification. It is to only be used in
conjunction with other information and really can't be used alone to
determine whether or not I would be better off as a he or she. Version
two of the test was updated to take into account critisms of the original
especially with respect to Gender stereotyping.

The test is a general personality test and has many more uses then just
gender issues.

I just thought I would add this tidbit to the converstion.

Wendy
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Boy, are we ever hearing a lot about "Consequences," a men-only concept
Date: 12 Jan 93 14:41:22
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<MUFFY.93Jan3215420@remarque.berkeley.edu> <3127@tymix.Tymnet.COM>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: baba@samadhi.Tymnet.COM's message of 12 Jan 93 20:23:26 GMT

In article <3127@tymix.Tymnet.COM> baba@samadhi.Tymnet.COM (Duane Hentrich) writes:
>In article <MUFFY.93Jan3215420@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>I'd also go for the "consequences" being the *same* if there is an
>>abortion - how about if men go through a couple hours of serious pain
>>and pay out a couple hundred dollars for the privilege.

>Sounds a bit too much like certain forms of prostitution.

In other words, you don't want to discuss it, yes?  The woman *deserves*
to suffer, after all, for all that unauthorized sex or something...while
the man should just be able to walk away - after all, it isn't *his*
problem.  There's nothing going on in *his* body.

>>And then a
>>bunch of them can get serious infections, and some can even die.

>Herpes is forever. Are fatal VDs serious enough punishment?

This is the first I have heard that men get herpes (which is not
generally fatal) from accidental pregnancies.  Bizarre biological
facts, eh?

>>Most
>>of them can go through some emotional trauma too.  *Then* the
>>consequences will "compare."

>I take it you've never had to deal with a newly pregnant woman who
>damn well doesn't WANT to be pregnant and blames YOU.

Nope...if I get a woman pregnant, it will *have* to be on purpose.
However, I *have* had to deal with *being* pregnant.  Frankly, I'd
rather be the man - then there's just a financial (and possibly
emotional) outlay, no physical pain, no risk of death, etc.

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                      | ~Never had a lot of faith in human beings/
muffy@mica.berkeley.edu            |  but sometimes we manage to shine/like a
"amorous inclinations"? Aha! I'm   |  light on a hill beaming out to space/from
not "not straight," I'm *inclined*.|  somewhere hard to find~ - Bruce Cockburn
Newsgroups: alt.feminism