HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Boycotts (was Re: Why are many low-income women fat?)
Summary: The alt.feminism edition.
Date: 31 Dec 92 20:56:48 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: Living In Harmony

In article <C02zFx.5Eq@news.cso.uiuc.edu> 
levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:

>Good always has to be defined, ultimately, case by case. I don't think 
>there is any one concept which will define it in *all* circumstances. 

>Which is not to say there might not be concepts which define it
>in *most* circumstances; but these concepts form a practical,
>not a theoretical definition of good.

There are two problems with this approach:
1) A not very clear of definition "good" let people manipulate the
   system.  If they are honest it can make a lot of good, but this
   kind of power attracts McCarthy-type people, and so it
   usually makes a lot of bad.

2) Unwritten laws and "you should have known that that was 
   forbidden" is unfair.  That's why the citizens of Athens 
   demanded written laws *long* time ago.

>>If you have a machine that works reasonably well then it is not
>>a good idea to "improve" it before you understand it.

>Agreed. But even in this "Bronze age of oppression" (to quote
>another poster) *some* people understand the machine enough
>to make *some* improvements.

Would you mind to give some specific examples?

>>It seems to me a better idea to start fixing what does not work.
>>E.g. finding out why NY has the highest state taxation on an
>>average family in the nation, but it gives lousy services.

>Alfonse d'Amato? You should hear my mother -- who lives in New
>York -- talk about him!

>(And let me be nonpartisan and mention David Dinkins...)

You see the problem as the people, I see the problem in the kind
of system that attracts those people.

Because the system was supposed to create "social justice," it has
*taxed* the middle class people.  As a result the government had a 
lot of money to spend, and people like d'Amato and Dinkins have
been attracted to it.

In my opinion, part of "social justice" is reducing the power of the
government.  Do you reject this approach?  Can you give an example
where a powerful government stayed (more or less) "clean handed"?

>Please! This is a quote from Yamanari, **not** from me.

I'm sorry for my mistake and I apologize.

>Lenore Levine

Hillel                                      gazit@cs.duke.edu

"Moderated newsgroups are set up and run by industrial-strength
control queens as jealous of their monopoly as a five-year-old 
with his first chocolate bunny."  --  STella@xanadu.com	
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Violence
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 20:00:19 GMT

In article <michael.724959579@glia> michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael) writes:
>In <1992Dec20.171803.22588@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec15.134838.27623@cs.cornell.edu> jean@cs.cornell.edu (Jean M. Petrosino) writes:
>>>                                            I think the men here have to stop
>>>directing their anger at feminists who call attention to violence issues, and
>>>re-direct their anger at the men who are committing these violent acts.
>>Yes, when women are angry, their anger is valid. But when men voice their
>>anger, they are misdirected. This explains a lot.
 
>That is not what she just said.  But I suppose its easy to make fun of
>someone just after you stuff words in their mouth.

Let the innocent poster cast the first stone. But in the act of casting
said stone, one looses their innocence.

Another thing, you deleted a fair amount of text, and left not a single
indicator, making it appear that I had posted only what you see above. This
is either deliberately dishonest, or a mistake. You seem not to allow
for mistakes or misunderstandings in others (or you would not post informative
on-topic posts as you did above), so by your own methods it would seem
that you must be guilty of dishonesty. Rini would have just edited everything
but my sentence and said something like "You lie" (this -is- a quote).
You are in good company.

Next, I did not "stuff words" in anyone's mouth. She stated that "men here 
have to stop directing their anger at feminists who call attention to violence 
issues, and re-direct their anger at the men who are committing these violent 
acts", which I read as a statement that mens anger is 'misdirected', and this
I referred to while contrasting it to the assumption about any womens anger.

Lastly, her post -assumes- (in the face of evidence to the contrary) the
-men- are the ones "committing these violent acts". And she also confuses
crime with violence (they are -not- interchangable). 

In short, your post was completely without merit.

>    Michael Stanley (michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu)



Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Boycotts (was Re: Why are many low-income women fat?)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 03:25:09 GMT

In article <BzxFpK.Dty@news.cso.uiuc.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>
>>In article <BzvzoM.Fn3@news.cso.uiuc.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
>>>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>
>>>>>>In many cases, these policies are a matter of public record. For
>>>>>>example, in the case of the systems analyst, she was explicitly
>>>>>>told by her contact at the employment agency that Sun would not
>>>>>>hire her.
>>>
>>>>Just for the record, it is my understanding that Sun is not hiring
>>>>-any- temporaries, at all, and this has been the policy for the last
>>>>several years. This is unqualified, regardless of sex, height, or
>>>>planet of origin, they will not hire any temps as permanant.
>>>
>>>>Even reading your text, I cannot see any implication of discrimination.
>>>
>>>The woman was considered for a permanent position at Sun; and she was
>>>explicitly told, that people of a nonstandard weight would not be
>>>considered for such positions.
>>>
>>>Yes, I think that's discrimination...
>>>
>
>>She was told this by the agency, not by Sun. And if it was within the
>>last several years, Sun has not been hiring temps. And just for the
>>record, I know an engineer at Sun who would probably not fit in the
>>passenger seat of my Honda Civic. If this were company policy, he
>>could not be working there.
>
>>Rich
>>payner@netcom.com
>
>Once again, I don't know when this incident happened; and the woman was
>not being considered as a temp. 

There was another post where a temp-permanant hire (at sun) was brought up,
it seems that I connected the two incorrectly. Please accept my apology.
But you might have mentioned it a bit sooner.
 
>Are you curious enough for me to find out details?

There is no way I could verify or check anything. But if you want to
check, lets have a look.


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Ignore the twits.
X-To: DANIEL B. HOLZMAN
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 01:30:00 GMT

holzman@d0gslb.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman) writes...
DBH> Let's all just ignore neil and andrew, who are clearly venting frustrations
DBH> over not getting laid.

Seconded!  This has to be the best idea I've seen posted, in a *very* long
time.

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

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * McBorg:  Over 50 Billion assimilated!
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Working with Women vs. Working with Men
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 20:33:58 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.190432.29510@cs.cornell.edu> jean@cs.cornell.edu (Jean M. Petrosino) writes:
>RSR:			Equality is a delusion.
>JMP:				Translation: Suck it up.
>
>RSR:			Translation: Take everything away from everybody
>			and put them all in the same environment.  Some
>			will succeed, some will sink.  
>When in doubt, quote the superiority of capitalism and Darwin's survival of the
> fittest theory.  


	It works.  That's a lot more than I can say for alternative
	theories.

>RSR:			Come off it.  Should I make the effore to
>		"understand" someone elses methods when they wont
>		lift a finger to do the same? Hell no.  Women 
>		deserveno more slack than anyone else and I think
>		it's pretty sexist of you to suggest otherwise.
>
>
>Wow.  Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...In your earlier post you
>said women's thought processes are "crippled in some way, and "makes the work
>a lot less effective."

	What was I saying about your reading level?  Why don't
	you go back and re-read what I wrote.  I said "seems
	crippled in some wway"  and filled the
	message with more disclaimers than
	you get with most prescription 
	medication.


> You then go on to paralell women with children

	Who paralled them with children?  I made a parallel withg
	a repairman that's busy trying to watch a football game
	while working.  YOU brought children into it.


 >as well 
>as getting to the point of insulting my reading abilities.  

	If the shoe fits.  You're also pretty good at quoting out
	of context and distortion.  Methinks someone needs a valium.


>And to top it all
>off you get right down to calling me and other women pathetic simply because 
>we choose not to operate as you do.   

	Want to show me the quote that says this?

>Do you really believe that asking you to
>try to see a situation from another point of view is sexism? 
>What planet are you on?


	It is if you refuse to even acknowledge that 
	at this point, all of the efforts have
	been on my shoulders.  I have made *every* effort
	to deal with these people and their behavior, yet you
	say I need to empathize with them.  Screw that.

	Sexism?  You bet.  I don't hear you telling me that
	women need to try to work with men in a male fashion.


-- 
	"If you can't eat sand, why the hell are you living in a desert?"
			Equality is a delusion.
	     Rule 1:  "Don't have more children than you can feed."
	  	  Nuclear redevelopment for a better world!
From: zen@death.corp.sun.com (d)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Working with Women vs. Working with Men
Date: 23 Dec 92 16:18:14
Organization: savage hackers
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: death.corp.sun.com
In-reply-to: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu's message of Wed, 23 Dec 1992 20:33:58 GMT


In article <1992Dec23.203358.7692@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
   In article <1992Dec23.190432.29510@cs.cornell.edu> jean@cs.cornell.edu (Jean M. Petrosino) writes:
> >When in doubt, quote the superiority of capitalism and Darwin's
> >survival of the fittest theory.  
> It works.  That's a lot more than I can say for alternative
> theories.

  So you're saying that if I come up to you and blow you away with a
shotgun, then you were just unfit to live (survival of the fittest and
all, ya know)?  *You* may call that working, but not me (well, if it
happened to you, I might make an exception), at least, not as a viable
ethical and/or human solution.  Of course, if morals/ethics don't matter
to you, alt.feminism might not be where you belong... of course, this
planet might not be either...

  But I'd say that pure capitalism and darwinism work about as well in
practice as pure communism and dworkinism.

 -- d
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women,soc.men
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Daniel's interesting obsession with me
Date: 23 Dec 92 16:13:53
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<MUFFY.92Dec22220302@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<1992Dec23.165609.1@d0gslb.fnal.gov>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: holzman@d0gslb.fnal.gov's message of Wed, 23 Dec 1992 22:56:09 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.165609.1@d0gslb.fnal.gov> holzman@d0gslb.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman) writes:
>In article <MUFFY.92Dec22220302@remarque.berkeley.edu>, 
>muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>> Actually, the original discussion was about violence against women.  I
>> understand why you wish to twist the facts in this way, but I don't see
>> any point in answering it further.

>If you wish to limit meta-discussion to one discussion, that's one
>thing.

I wish to at least discuss what we were discussing as opposed to
attacking feminism yet again.  Silly of me, in this group, I know...the
whole *point* is to attack feminism.

>> Well, it would be quite fine with me if you would go to hell.  You
>> certainly aren't making the world any better by trying to STOP feminists
>> from doing anything about violence against women.  

>Please quote me EVER trying to get feminists OR ANYONE ELSE to stop doing
>anything about violence against women.

Sure, right here:

>Why is it that every time someone brings up violence against men, here or
>elsewhere, some feminists start shouting about violence against women, and how
>dare we focus on men's problems?

Not only do you complain about feminists' concern for violence against
women, but you try to change the issue - this is *exactly* what was
happening to feminists in this thread: someone brought up violence
against women and the men leapt in with "but violence against men is so
much more prevalent."

>That foot in your big mouth looks awful uncomfortable.  Perhaps you should get
>it looked at.

I believe that my mouth is of normal size.  You kicking me in the face
may certainly have swollen it, but I think the discomfort is from the
kicking, really.  Maybe if we just cut the foot off of you, we'd both be
more comfortable?

>I also work full time and support a family.  What's your excuse?

Excuse for what, pray tell?  I work full time (well, more than full
time, since I work at a very small company and essentially do two jobs
here) and support a small family (me, my SO, and our close friends and
lovers as necessary).  Right now, my SO (male) is trying to recover from
10 years of abuse, and I am trying to help him.  A lover is leaving a
damaging relationship and I'm trying to help her.  Friends are
fortunately doing well at the moment.

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: an781@anon.penet.fi (Facist)
Subject: This is a test
Organization: Anonymous contact service
X-Anonymously-To: alt.feminism
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 02:49:14 GMT

 
Please forgive--this is a stupid test of the anon server.
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind system, any replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:6712 soc.men:21998
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Damned Souls (was Re: Version Five)
Date: 2 Jan 93 12:06:31 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: Living In Harmony

In article <C058Hz.Fq2@news.cso.uiuc.edu> 
levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:

>I am only defending the idea that affirmative action is *sometimes*
>reasonable. I would by no means defend all current uses of affirmative
>action.

Which one would you defend?

>>Anyway, if you want to check how will you do on your own merit (fat
>>chance...) then you can refuse to fill up the affirmative action forms.
>>This way it will be worth to hire you only if the employer
>>really needs you.

>What affirmative action forms are you assuming I fill out? Be specific.

Most employers and most schools ask all applicants to fill out
affirmative action when they apply.  In those forms one has to 
tell about his/her race and sex.  I'm a little surprised that
your school has not asked you to fill out any.
From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: The BEM Test
Date: 30 Dec 92 17:39:01 GMT
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

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
: you complete the test). You are asked how well these adjectives describe
: you; and whether you assign yourself a preponderance of masculine or
: feminine adjectives, determines your "sex type."
: 
: The fact that I found this test, suggests that it was in use some time
: in the past ten years. I am curious when and how it was devised, whether
: it's still in use, and for what clients it's intended.
: 
: Following are the adjectives of significance in this test.
: 
: Feminine: yielding, cheerful, shy, affectionate, flatterable, loyal,
: feminine, sympathetic, sensitive to the needs of others, understanding,
: compassionate, eager to soothe hurt feelings, soft spoken, warm, tender,
: gullible, childlike, does not use harsh language, loves children,
: gentle.
: 
: Masculine: self-reliant, defends own beliefs, independent, athletic,
: assertive, strong personality, forceful, analytical, has leadership
: abilities, willing to take risks, makes decisions easily,
: self-sufficient, dominant, masculine, willing to take a stand,
: aggressive, acts as a leader, individualistic, competitive, ambitious. 
: 
: I urge you to draw your own conclusions from this test.
: 
: Lenore Levine        

My God!  I'm a woman!
What a silly test.

Bill  
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Back Again To (Un)Father - NOT!
Date: 2 Jan 1993 21:26:09 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:

>peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes...
>>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>Would it be equally OK to for man to make such decisions for women?

>>What equivalent decisions would that be?

>Ah, for instance - The woman doesn't want to raise the child, but the man
>does.  Is she forced to support a child whom she doesn't want?

If the child is born, then indeed she is!  There *are* cases that have
mandated a woman to pay child support to a custodial father.


-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Working with Women vs. Working with Men
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 16:25:23 GMT

In article <ZEN.92Dec23161814@death.corp.sun.com> zen@death.corp.sun.com (d) writes:
>
>In article <1992Dec23.203358.7692@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>   In article <1992Dec23.190432.29510@cs.cornell.edu> jean@cs.cornell.edu (Jean M. Petrosino) writes:
>> >When in doubt, quote the superiority of capitalism and Darwin's
>> >survival of the fittest theory.  
>> It works.  That's a lot more than I can say for alternative
>> theories.
>
>  So you're saying that if I come up to you and blow you away with a
>shotgun, then you were just unfit to live (survival of the fittest and
>all, ya know)?  

This does not follow. It would perhaps follow that you were 'fitter',
or more fit to live. This is quite different from "unfit to live". 
Survival of the fittest is not a binary model with those fit to
live, and those unfit to live, but a relative model, whichever is
fittest will survive.

>                  *You* may call that working, but not me (well, if it
>happened to you, I might make an exception), at least, not as a viable
>ethical and/or human solution.  

Some would call it misrepresentation, a reprehensible crime punishable
by incessant flamage and blaming. I think that it is the case that 
clear communication is not happening. The above text might be interpreted
as putting words in Yamanari's mouth as well, which is also frowned upon.

>                              Of course, if morals/ethics don't matter
>to you, alt.feminism might not be where you belong... of course, this
>planet might not be either...

I'd say that with the wide variation of what people consider ethical/
moral that the above could apply just about anywhere, and to both sides
of any argument. And many ethics are culture bound. By the above logic
one might conclude that they have a right to evict the Islam nations from
the planet for unethical/immoral social behavior. 
 
>  But I'd say that pure capitalism and darwinism work about as well in
>practice as pure communism and dworkinism.

Pure Darwinanian evolution is only used by the creationists anymore, and
mostly as a straw man, because few creationists understand the arguments
that they use. (there are notable exceptions, but the vast majority that
I have traded posts with post arguments from religious anti-evolution 
books that they do not understand, and probably do not care to understand)

As for Dworkinism, I guess Canada will be a test case.
 
> -- d
From: levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine)
Subject: Re: Why I am Not An Egalitarian
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 21:13:56 GMT

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:

>It seems to me that you spend a great deal of time defining things in
>terms of classes, and have shown little interest in dropping the class
>distinctions and looking at every case individually.

But isn't part of looking at individual cases developing an intuition
about the individual, instead of going strictly by paper qualifications?

And part of such an intution may be an *individual's* history of
overcoming adversity. 

Note that I am in favor of affirmative action in terms of groups
only in limited and extreme circumstances; (which have to be
a lot more extreme for government than for private institutions).

I am, particularly, not in favor of *automatic* preference to women
and minorities in public university admissions programs.

Lenore Levine
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:6435 soc.men:21689 soc.women:21834
From: dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Date: 22 Dec 1992 23:30:06 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: redondo.sw.stratus.com

Another point too is that everything I have read and heard and seen makes
a pretty good case there there aren't people who are violent in only one
(or a few) contexts.  They are violent people, period.  Most of them are
men, true.  But the guy who beats up his wife/girlfriend is very likely
also the one who got into the fight outside that bar the other night.
The problem I see is that when people like Muffy say that their agenda
(being women) is violence against women (usually by men), I'm not sure
but what they're addressing the symptom, not the cause.  That's why I get
frustrated when I want to see us solve the issue of violent behavior in
general, but when I point out that these men victimize *everyone*, not just
men, various net.women tell me 1) it's men doing the beating, so deal with it.
or 2) they're having enough problems trying to stop violence against women,
so handle it yourself.  or 3) stop playing "my life is tougher than yours!".


-- 

#include <std_disclaimer.h>

Dan S.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women,soc.men