HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Sad Day for Liberty
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 92 20:39:35 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.151227.3988@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
>In <1992Nov6.081944.2669@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU writes:
>> Cracker Barrel, a restaurant chain in the Southeast, fired men and
>> women simply because they're gay or lesbian.  How would a state law
>> which says that it's illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual
>> orientation hurt straights?

> Well, first off such laws *don't* hurt straights.  At least I don't
think so.  >Cracker Barrel should be sued within an inch of its
corporate life -- sexual >orientation has no bearing on job
performance.  As for new laws, one would >think the "penumbra" of or
the right to privacy which the Supreme Court has >found would do quite
nicely.

Why is Cracker Barrel at fault?  The Supreme Court has ruled that laws
that specifically target sexual activity between members of the same
sex are legal.  The right to privacy doesn't appear to cover lesbigay
people.

> I am unaware that *any* laws against violent acts such as assualt or
murder >have ever done diddly to prevent them.  Also, a law
enforcement group unwilling >to help a gay/whatever person out is not
likely to suddenly become ultra-con- >cerned becausde the law tells
'em to be so.  The problem is attitudes, not >laws (generally
speaking, of course).  Somehow I think a "hate crime" law >would just
result in uncaring individuals going through the motions.

I have problems with the idea of hate crimes myself.  However, what I
do see happening is that the police appear to be more helpful wrt hate
crimes than they did before the idea of hate crimes.  Even if it just
is uncaring individuals going through the motions, if it means that a
high incidence of hate crimes puts more officers on the streets around
gay bars (for example), it may be worth it.

In an ideal world, the whole catagory of hate crimes wouldn't exist
because the police would respond to a victim regardless of whether
s/he's black, Hispanic, lesbigay, whatever.

>  Discrimination on *any* basis (aside from maybe an abrasive personality :-))
>should be (already) unconstitutional.  Without requiring *new* laws, just the 
>ditching of old bad ones.  Except maybe a Constitutional amendment explicitly
>defining the right to privacy -- that oughta cut out a lot of this shit we 
>see.

The problem I see with this idea (which I like) is that right now
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is legal.
From: jth4@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JON T. HUTCHINSON)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Supermodels contribute to spiraling low self esteem?
Date: 13 Nov 92 21:12:39 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1dsbfhINN8hi@bigboote.WPI.EDU>, cor@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Cory Shimer) wri
tes:
>
>Hmm.
>
>More than likely.
>
>If someone makes you feel relatively unattractive by what they say
>or do, and then you happen to see some poster of some supermodel...
>
>The problem with low self esteem is that it self propagates.
>
>The less attractive you feel, the less attractive you probably become
>(from a personality standpoint, and perhaps from a physical standpoint
>if it causes you to neglect your appearance), which makes it more likely
>that people will do or say things that mkae you feel less attractive.
>
>The problem is that society contribumtes to this.
>
>Even if you are feeling good about yourself, some asshole
>can come along and start the downward spiral of self esteem.
>
>For this reason I have a small problem with the person who posted
>that people should just express how they feel at any given moment and not
>worry about hurting other people.
>
>It's not the supermodels themselves that can contribute to this, but
>the way society lifts them up as a comparison standard.
>
>Think twice before being an asshole, you might just be affecting
>someones life.
>
>---
>
I think supermodels are goals most women should stride for.
-- 
________________________________________________________________________

Jon T. Hutchinson, Network Coordinator
Office of Telecommunications
office 215-758-5099
fax    215-758-6127
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Men farting
From: codish@chen.bgu.ac.il (Shlomi Codish )
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 19:22:23 GMT
Organization: Ben Gurion University, Beer Sheva, Israel

Why don't you try to do the same??? If that fails, do it in front of his friends - that's guaranteed to get his attention... (BTW it might be considered a
legitimate grounds for divorce ;-))

Shlomi

Xref: sparky soc.women:19445 soc.men:19180
From: dwelch@mpd.tandem.com (Dan Welch)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: Self Appreciation (was: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Date: 12 Nov 92 23:06:46 GMT
Followup-To: soc.women
Distribution: usa
Organization: Tandem Computers (MPD) Austin, TX

In article <MUFFY.92Nov11145601@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>
>In article <srp.721517909@cgl.ucsf.edu> srp@cgl.ucsf.edu (Scott R. Presnell) writes:
>> My
>> point here is that there are hunkster men in lots of magazines too - I
>> notice them 
>I'm sure that that's true.  Of course, our society doesn't really stress
>looks as being important for men, just for women.  For men, what is
>important seems to be "masculinity."  How much of your (any man)
>self-image do you think is rooted in how "male" you are?

Good heavens, Muffy, how do you think guys measure how "male" they are?
By the length of their small intestines?  Oh, wait, maybe you do know --

>Look at the threads here on sex, with the fears of penises being called
>useless and the constant assertions that women really want "manly" men.

Isn't penis size part of our physical appearance?  Try this as an exercise:
you are probably aware of the insecurity most women (incorrectly, IMHO)
feel about their breasts.  Certainly, from the above, you are aware of
the insecurity a lot of men have about their penis size.  A lot of
women claim that even though men tell them that breast size doesn't
matter (that large-breasted women are just a fantasy figure), they don't
believe the men because of the images of women they get from TV, etc.
Now, there are a lot of women out there telling guys that penis size
doesn't matter, as well.  Why would you think these guys would be any
more likely to believe the women than the women were to believe the men?
Men are just as insecure about their appearance as women.  Where do you
think this insecurity comes from?  It certainly doesn't come from women.
Maybe it comes from *society*.

Actually, more likely, it comes from other men.  Just like the pressure
for women to be beautiful comes from other women, not men.  If you don't
believe this, check out an issue of "Ms." magazine.  Count the number
of adds for perfumes, make-up, clothing, breast enlargements, etc.  And
remember, this is a *feminist* magazine.

Daniel Welch
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: parker@meibm4.cen.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: Am I "exploiting" this woman?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 17:56:52 GMT

sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:

>In article <Bx9L3x.HDn@news.cso.uiuc.edu> parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu
>() writes:

>>Simply stated:  passive rights have precidence over active rights.
>>The right *not* to have something happen to you is more important than the
>>right of you to cause that something *to* happen to someone.

>So my right *not* to be hassled for reading a magazine takes
>precedence over your right to hassle me for reading it?

Actually, yes, if your reading the magazine doesn't impose on me.  If it *does*
impose on someone and makes her (or him) uncomfortable, then you are the one
at fault.  No one will stop you from reading whatever you want in privacy when
you are on break, but if you spread out your Playboy on the table at a public
dining room, your behavior is inappropriate.

>Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com

-Rob
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.discrimination
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Sad Day for Liberty
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 22:47:01 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.081944.2669@leland.Stanford.EDU>
farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:

>Cracker Barrel, a restaurant chain in the Southeast, fired men and
>women simply because they're gay or lesbian.  How would a state law
>which says that it's illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual
>orientation hurt straights?

Provided that there were no statistical enforcement mechanisms, it
wouldn't.  In fact, it would help us; non-gays are sometimes
discriminated against.

>I think the belief is that if your color, sexual orientation, whatever
>make you a more likely target for violence, the hate laws may just
>reduce that likelihood.

So why aren't there special penalties for mugging the elderly?

>Laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation,
>color, religion, etc. are not AA.  I've yet to hear of one law that
>suggests that there should be quotas for lesbigay people.

Quotas come later.  First there are laws against discrimination.  Then
somebody says "Look at them.  There are fewer X's than naive
statistics would lead me to expect.  Therefore they must be
discriminating."  To protect themselves against this attack, they
ensure that there are a "statistically appropriate" number of X's.
Somehow, quotas have snuck in.

I'm not saying that anybody is actually planning this, or even that it
will happen.  I'm in favor of laws banning discrimination on
irrelevant grounds, provided they don't allow statistical "proof" of
discrimination.

To those who are going to say "This company hasn't hired and X's,
therefore they must be discriminating.  Why won't you allow that as
proof?"  I'll say "Show me one X who applied and was more qualified
than candidates they did hire.  The existence of such a person implies
discrimination; if you can't find one, then tell me _precisely who_
they discriminated against."

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
From: carroll@cs.uiuc.edu (Alan M. Carroll)
Subject: Re: Was Clinton's victory America's message to the Anti-Choice?
Organization: Technophiles Inc. - Engineers with Attitude
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 23:36:34 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.155055.28256@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
> It seems to me that one of the largest deciding factors, along with the
> economy, in pushing Clinton past the finish line was abortion.

Not according to NPR exit polls, in which abortion was a distant third
after the deficit and (_way_ in front) the economy.

I think people are realizing that it's a lot more direct if Congress
is pro-choice, in which case it doesn't matter what the President or
Supreme Court say. Or you can go the Maryland route and take care of
it at the state level.

-- 
Alan M. Carroll          "Weren't there yams involved, too?" - J. Ockerbloom
Epoch Development Team   
Urbana Il.               "I hate shopping with the reality-impaired" - Susan
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: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 01:42:35 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.061454.3418@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>In article <1992Nov6.223212.10549@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>>In article <1dca56INNgi7@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>
>[the thread is about father notification, which I imagine you guessed 
>from the title]
>
>>>No one is disputing that.  The question is, should it be the *law*.
>
>>With suitable exceptions, yes.
>
>I suppose you have some support (figures or examples would be nice) that
>this proposed legislation will have some deterrent effect?  Or do you want
>revenge?  

Since the law I'm talking about isn't written yet, nor have I claimed to have
all the exceptions it will be difficult to do anything but offer hypothetical
examples:

1:
Suppose a woman is pregnant who cannot afford to raise a child, but the father
can.  Suppose that woman isn't all that close to the father and simply assumes
he would want her to have an abortion anyway and wouldn't be particularly
interested in even hearing about it, so off she goes to the abortion clinic.
Now, suppose that the father would, in fact, like to have a child very much,
and would be more than happy to pay for an abortion if that's what the mother
wants, but would be even more happy to raise the child if the mother would be
willing to bring it to term.  Does not the father deserve a chance in this
case to be informed?

2:
Suppose a woman is pregnant and really wants the child.  She decides not to
inform the father because, after all, it is her decision.  Then, suppose she
loses her job, and, well, she needs help paying the bills, so the father is
now responsible for child support.  Would this not be a perfectly legal, but
quite unjust event?


I make no claim as to the frequency of these hypothetical cases, merely that
they are possible, and it is a statistical probability that they have occurred.


As far as your revenge hypothesis goes, I'm afraid your net-psychoanalyzing has
failed horrendously...
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Xref: sparky soc.women:19238 soc.men:19005
From: dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: Get a CLUE, a LARGE CLUE
Date: 10 Nov 92 18:51:25 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: redondo.sw.stratus.com

In article <1992Nov10.174255.478@u.washington.edu>, gwangung@byron.u.washington.edu (Roger Tang) writes:
> In article <1doh4kINNaie@transfer.stratus.com> dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber) writes:
> >So semantic handwaving aside, is the one any worse than the other?  I have a
> >real problem with that, because it makes the good/evil of something you do
> >dependent on the situation. 
> 
> 	Is that a problem?
> 
> 	Is blowing someone away randomly on the street equivalent to blowing
> someone away who's invading your home with intent to kill you?
> 
> 	Same action, different situation.

I guess I wasn't clear enough.  I didn't mean the action, I meant the act,
with all of the non-physical connotations involved.  Most people will agree
that in your example, the actions are the same, but the acts are not (i.e.
one is cold-blooded murder and the other is self-defense).  If you tell me
I can kill someone in self-defense in my bedroom but not in my kitchen, that's
when things start getting questionable to me.  And in any event, what is your
answer to the question I posed?  Do you think a black who hates whites and
commits antisocial acts based on that hatred is somehow less bad than a white
who hates blacks and acts accordingly?

> -- 
> 	"I got into theatre originally to pick up girls. Unfortunately, all I
> found were women..."
> e-mail:  gwangung@u.washington.edu

-- 

#include <std_disclaimer.h>

Dan S.
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: mar@igor.tamri.com (Derrick Mar)
Subject: ***WANTED: Recommendation of Gynecologist in Silicon Valley***
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA
Distribution: ca
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 07:36:06 GMT

I am posting this for a friend.  Please respond directly to him.

************************************************************************

My wife and I are looking for recommendations of a good gynecologist
in the South Bay (San Jose) area.  We have Cigna Health Plan.
We thank you in advance for your taking the time to recommend one.

Please reply to mjm80@ate.amdahl.com or call Marco at (408) 992-2752.

Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: A GREAT Night for Americans!  (Women especially!)
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 17:48:13 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.184032.1539@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
>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.

I heard a sentence on the news two days ago that Clinton or one of
his "representatives" had said that Choice was still important but the
first priority of the Clinton administration is to tackle our economic
problems.

Of course, that probably means raising revenue using "Draconian"
(Clinton's words) child support.  That's it: keep women in poverty and 
prevent men from raising children, so that irresponsible men have 
to work three times as hard, supporting children and decreasing the Deficit.

We have a long way to go, but at least -- oh.  Oh well.

We'll see whether or not the Democratic party has forgotten about 
equality, fairness, and social justice.  Or whether it merely figured
out how to win elections.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts)
Subject: Re: Am I "exploiting" this woman?
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 15:27:30 GMT

In <Bx9L3x.HDn@news.cso.uiuc.edu> parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu () writes:
>HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
>>In <1992Nov5.153742.20271@cbnews.cb.att.com> lib@cbnews.cb.att.com writes:
>>So long as it isn't on "company time", of course...
>Not being allowed to read such things at work does not stop you from reading
>them at home (where there *is* noone else to consider.  If you have a wife and/
>or kids, you can always lock yourself in the bathroom...  ;)  but your reading
>such things at work *does* stop those others from being able to avoid them.
>*That* is how you know.
>Simply stated:  passive rights have precidence over active rights.
>The right *not* to have something happen to you is more important than the
>right of you to cause that something *to* happen to someone.
Simply stated:  You do not have the right to force everyone to coddle your
every neurosis.  You seem to have difficulty understanding that at some point
you will have to accept that some people are different.  Peoples reading
material is entirely their own business.  Why do you insist on telling that
woman what she is allowed to read?  
Ken
Newsgroups: soc.women,talk.politics.theory,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.classics
From: holmes@garnet.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes)
Subject: Re: Plato's Views on Women
Keywords: Plato, politics, women, feminism
Organization: Boise State University
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 16:28:20 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.084242.5709@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
>In article <1992Nov6.161153.9610@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>>koc5@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>|>As a newcomer to women's studies and to feminist philosophy I could also use 
>>|>refernces to the most important recent work.  The University of Chicago,
>>|>where I attend, seems unusually benighted in its lack of a women's studies
>>|>department or even a women's studies bibliographer.
>>
>>brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>>| Since you are just getting started, I would think that the first order of
>>| bussiness ought to be to seriously question whether "feminist philosophy"
>>| is a valid field of study.  In my view, to place sex at such a 
>>| fundamental position in one's way of thinking is simply absurd.
>>
>>Brian, you haven't done the reading.  I suggest -- in the case
>>of feminism -- you peruse some of the philosophical works 
>>periodically listed in the soc.feminism newsgroup.  Surely
>>it must occur to you that what you call sex must have
>>considerable importance if it was the basis of shutting half
>>of the human race out of most of what we fondly call 
>>history.

 	This shows that it has considerable importance to people you
disagree with.  This does not show that it has independent
philosophical importance.  And, in fact, the best argument for rights
for women is from rights for people; if women are fundamentally
different, then they do not clearly have the same rights.  You can't
have your cake and eat it, too; if you want gender-neutral rights, you
must accept them on the basis of gender-neutral human nature.  If
there is no gender neutral human nature, then rights for men and women
rest on different foundations and may very well be different.

>
>Sure Gordon.  Anything you say.  
>
>Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
>TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM 


-- 
The opinions expressed		|     --Sincerely,
above are not the "official"	|     M. Randall Holmes
opinions of any person		|     Math. Dept., Boise State Univ.
or institution.			|     holmes@opal.idbsu.edu
Xref: sparky soc.women:19360 alt.feminism:4212 soc.men:19110
From: dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Date: 11 Nov 92 22:30:32 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: redondo.sw.stratus.com

In article <1drt2jINN42l@hp-sdd.sdd.hp.com>, teri@sdd.hp.com (Teri Tracey) writes:
> charleen@ADS.COM (Charleen Bunjiovianna) writes:
> >
> >I am a woman.  I am not oppressed by any advertising.  Your statement
> >is incorrect.  Care to modify it?
> 
> No.  Perhaps we simply disagree.

Funny, you made the general statement that such ads oppress women, which
implies *all* women.  Charleen said they don't oppress her.  I don't have
any problem with you two disagreeing, but I do find it somewhat strange
that the second part of your statement contradicts the first part.

> Teri

-- 

#include <std_disclaimer.h>

Dan S.
From: alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu (Amy Young Leith)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Women in Combat
Date: 12 Nov 92 15:36:16 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Nov12.203622.8038
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington

In article <1992Nov11.135029.4097@hemlock.cray.com> acp@cray.com (Anthony Peterson) writes:

>	Why is it OK that male-->male rape is "pretty low" but sad that
>	the incidence of male-->female rape "hasn't quite been educated
>	out of existence"?

It's kind of like the lesser of two evils.  I doubt she meant that
male-male rape is "ok."  

amy

-- 
alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu for personal mail
			    All business mail to alyoung@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       I only speak for myself.  Anyone who thinks differently is a fool.
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: linda@wendy.net.com (Linda Hill)
Subject: Re: More Women Than Men Prefer to be Alone
Followup-To: soc.women
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 16:05:00 GMT

In article <1doj8oINNjkk@news.aero.org> foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
>A news item this morning said that 20% of married men preferred to be home
>alone. However, 50% of married women preferred to be home alone.
>
>Are there other studies similiar to this? What are the reasons for more
>women then men preferreing to be by themselves?

Completely off the top of my head, so this could be just another
stereotype, but could it be because women in general are more comfortable
being alone than men are?  I know in my particular case, _both_ my
husband and I enjoy having time alone at home when we don't have to
worry about being in the other's way.  But that may be because we live
on a 33' sailboat.  :-)
-- 
Linda V. Hill                           Email: linda@net.com
Network Equipment Technologies          Phone: (415) 780-5785
800 Saginaw Drive, 23.2.3               Fax:   (415) 780-5001
Redwood City, CA 94063 
Newsgroups: soc.women,talk.politics.theory,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.classics