HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mrmach@walker2.hu.mtu.edu (MARK ROMAN MACH)
Subject: Re: Nasty E-Mail
Reply-To: mrmach@mtu.edu
Organization: CCLI, Michigan Technological University
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 11:13:29 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.154145.29960@wam.umd.edu>, sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell) writes:
>athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:
>>Perhaps the women should start to post the e-mail addresses of the folks
>>who ask the wannafuck questions of them.  Then we can bombard THEM with the
>>areyououtofyourmind questions.
>
>	I agree.  I think the senders of such mail would be VERY
>	embarrassed.  I could be wrong but I think it would stop
>	them cold.

    I'm not sure, but I think this could cause legal repercussions.
With snail-mail, the letter becomes the property of the addressee, but I
believe that this doesn't hold true with e-mail.

    From what I understand, e-mail is copyrighted by the author.
Reposting the message without their permission could call for a
lawsuit.  A publicly humiliated person could resort to such measures.

    Does anybody know one way or the other for sure?

-- 
Mark R. Mach, mrmach@mtu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: feminist sound bytes
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 23:45:24 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.063045.164@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>
>>But having ADMITTED that men can prevail
>>over women, on average, in the classroom merely because of their
>>greater aggressiveness, does it not follow that they can easily do
>>the same when the discussion moves from classroom to conference
>>room? 
>
>Boy, you got us there Robert!  Wow!  Yer real smart, erntcha! 
>
>I bet that those people who did those studies on men's domination of
>classrooms had *no* idea that it might apply to conference rooms too!!!
>But *you* caught 'em with their pants down, didn't you Robert!  How
>ingenious!  ... Woah... I can feel the foundations of feminism rockin'
>already.... It'll all crumble away now fersure!  Keep that debunking 
>going!  We need more smart people like you!

So, Rini, I take it you now accept the conclusion that male dominance both
in the classroom AND in the business conference room can be explained
by the greater aggressiveness of the male? And hence there is nothing
(short of forcing the women to undergo testosterone treatment!) that's
going to change this?
-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!


     "Mystical explanations are considered deep. The truth is that
      they are not even superficial."

                   - Friedrich Nietzsche    (The Gay Science: 126)
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:6232 soc.men:21399 soc.women:21645
From: levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Gender differences - Sophie Germain
Date: 16 Dec 92 16:36:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.BzD244.HMM
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

<RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:

>  It (fighting for equality) benefits when the inequality is 
>artificial and comes from some
>tradition or scripture which did not take into account the possibilities
>of men and women.  But the inequality could be an INTELLIGENT taking
>into account of the existence of natural differences.  However, I don't
>want to be dogmatic about it - there are many things we don't know yet.

>Rohit Parikh

But even if a certain stereotype is true 90%, or 95% of the time -- is it
fair to apply it all the time -- and to people to whom it *doesn't*
apply? 

For example, I have a lovely niece who was born in the summer of 1991.
Judging from her current height, she could easily be six feet tall
when she's grown up. I hope no one tells her that just because most
people six feet tall are men, she's somehow unfeminine in being that
height. I'm glad that at least that *particular* stereotype is disappearing.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.dads-rights,soc.men,misc.legal
From: fsars@acad3.alaska.edu
Subject: Re: False allegations of abuse / Chesler's book...
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 09:16:15 GMT

In article <1992Dec20.014604.17592@zooid.guild.org>, goid@zooid.guild.org (Will Steeves) writes:
> Are you *deadly* sure of your interpretation of the book?  If what you
> are saying is strictly correct, Ms. Chesler's book is instructing women
> to do something which is a federal *felony*, ie., fabricating a charge
> that is known to be false, and I am sure that the authorities will have
> had a word with her, before allowing the book onto the shelves (Before
> anyone slams me for being a pro-censorship cad, I am *not* saying that I
> would consider it a good idea to censor her book, I *do* believe that we
> should do *something* about books that instruct people on how to break the
> law!!).  Also note that this distinction is the reason why I have cross
> posted to misc.legal.

There is no stopping the book from getting onto the shelves by the
authorities, whether they talk to her or not.  However, her publisher
would definitely talk to her before allowing the book onto the shelves
with their name on it.  They might be liable if harm comes to someone
from such advice.

You're assuming that the authorities would be notified before such a
book hits the shelves, and I doubt that would happen.  I seriously
doubt there is such a law on the books, and if there were, I also
doubt it would pass constitutional muster.  === Al Sparks
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: jlothian@castle.ed.ac.uk (J Lothian)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Hello
Keywords: eedjit
Date: 11 Dec 92 19:16:46 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University Computing Service

In article <7518@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk>, jon@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk (Mick Hucknall) writes:
|> Hi babes.  Fancy some hot sex ?
|> 
|> Jon
|> 9212101758

Did you leave your terminal logged in this evening, Jon/Mick?

James

-- 

-------------------------------------------------------
James Lothian        |      "It's life, Jim, 
james@uk.ac.ed.caad  |   but not as we know it"
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Mysogynist Bullshit
Date: 12 Dec 92 19:39:02
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
Distribution: usa
	<Bz2DDM.8M0@javelin.sim.es.com>
	<1992Dec12.021406.13333@u.washington.edu>
	<1992Dec12.043838.13722@midway.uchicago.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu's message of Sat, 12 Dec 1992 04:38:38 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.043838.13722@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:
>twain@milton.u.washington.edu (Barbara Hlavin) writes:

>>--Barbara, in love with Heiner, 
>            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>**** >>>  So it is BARBARA HLAVIN !!!! <<< ****
>          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>Why I outta....  OH!  I'm so mad!! Lime Jello, right Barbara?  
>Big ol' trampoline, eh Barbara?  Flaunting those San Diego Zoo 
>connections, is that how you do it Barbara?  I can't believe 
>this is happening right under my nose!  I just can't believe it!!!

Oh, rini...*HUG*...I'm sorry you had to find that out this way...but
just forget Heiner, and run off with me!  *smile*...California is very
lovely in the winter, too...

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
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: why poor women are obese
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 00:56:14 GMT

In article <1gg9reINN64b@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>
>>In article <1ge3s3INNm2i@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>
>>>Also, how many libraries are in the poor residential neighborhoods?  
>>>How many are open after work hours, when the working poor can get 
>>>to them?
>> 
>>You tell me. And tell me how this will affect housewives while you
>>are at it. (as per the subject line)
>
>The subject line (on my newsreader) reads "why poor women are obese".
>I'm not quite sure why you feel this has to do with housewives, 
>since most of the poor are in families headed by single working women.
>
>							--  Michal

Opps, you're right about the subject line. Now answer the other question. 
The one that goes ...
"How many are open after work hours, when the working poor can get to them?"
If you do not know the answer, the point is at best moot. At worse, it's
a false argument, or it may be wrong.

At any rate, information is available on most public television channels
periodically for those who cannot figure out how to get to the library.

Or are you going to tell me that they do not have TV?
 

>                                                --  Michal
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Of course there's no reason!  

--------------------------------


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women,soc.men
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Gender differences - Sophie Germain
From: <RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Wednesday, 16 Dec 1992 14:41:13 EST
 Edu> <2185@newsserver.cs.uwindsor.ca><2199@newsserver.cs.uwindsor.ca> 
 <michael.724427507@glia><92350.085253RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET> <michael.724528454@glia>
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

-From: michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael)
-
-As yet I see no reason to assume that men and women are not equal.  In
-fact to assume they aren't seems to me to be a crime.  Therefore until
-I see such proof, I will whole heartedly support such safe measures as
-help bring that equality into being as soon as possible.
-
   The word `equal' is ambiguous.  I would say, equal in what way?  That
they should have equal legal rights and equal opportunities to try their
hand at something, I agree.  But you seem to be saying more - that
there is NO statistical difference at any level other than purely
reproductive.  Talents for writng, music, taking care of children,
doing science, boxing, archery, Math, Chess,  occur with EXACTLY the
same frequency in both sexes.  Would you say that they ALSO occur with
the SAME frequency among women who go to Radcliffe and those who go
to Secretarial school?  And if they do not, does it follow that these
two groups of WOMEN are not EQUAL?   I think you are confusing two different
notions of equality and taking a legitimate MORAL argument about ONE
notion to argue to a highly questionable FACTUAL conclusion about
ANOTHER notion of equality.

-By the way...  what are the statistics on sinking ships these days?  Do
-more men lose the quality of their lives in sinking ships than do women
-in the workforce?  Even if this HAD been what we are talking about (which
-it isn't), you have an apple in a barrel of oranges here sir.
-
   No, you are quite right.  The Titanic disaster led to a regulation that
there must be lifeboat space for all passengers etc. etc.  But... that did
not prevent several million American MEN from being sent to a foolish
war in Vietnam, 57,000 to their deaths and many many more to destroyed
lives.  Nor does it change the fact that the vast majority of people in
prison are men.  I myself do not believe that the two sexes are  identical.
There are significant differences, some to the advantage of men, some to
the advantage of women.  But we currently have a state of dishonesty where
there is an official pretense that there are no differences.   Hence we
must move heaven and earth whenever we find women worse off in any field.
Whereas if men are worse off in some field, people like you may `take note
of it', but in fact no one DOES anything much about it.  As BHV pointed
out, Biden refused to even SEE men's groups who wanted to talk about domestic
violence of which MEN are victims.  So much for equality.

-    Michael Stanley (michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu)
.
Rohit Parikh
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: feminist sound bytes
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 06:27:02 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.040930.12720@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
> 
>>So, Rini, I take it you now accept the conclusion that male dominance both
>>in the classroom AND in the business conference room can be explained
>>by the greater aggressiveness of the male? 
>
>Of course. I certainly would agree that men tend to be more aggressive 
>than females...  would any feminist say otherwise?

    Actually, some *do*. Others, however, admit the distinction. But
    you know how it is: feminism represents many diverse viewpoints! :)
>
>>And hence there is nothing
>>(short of forcing the women to undergo testosterone treatment!) that's
>>going to change this?
>
>Where you got this from is beyond me. 

   Well, as long as we expect men to have more testosterone than women
   do, we should *expect* the male domination of discussions in
   classrooms and corporate conference rooms to continue, indefinitely.

>Hey -- what about forcing men to undergo estrogen treatment!!!  ;)

   A better idea: let's nobody force *anything*, and let everybody
   be what they are: even ljf, even Wendy, even Loren. And the remaining
   95% or so of us, who fit relatively well into our "conventional"
   sex roles, can just continue to do so, without expecting the world 
   to turn itself upside-down tomorrow, if not sooner.

>
-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!


     "Mystical explanations are considered deep. The truth is that
      they are not even superficial."

                   - Friedrich Nietzsche    (The Gay Science: 126)
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:6236 soc.men:21409 soc.women:21652
From: sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell)
Subject: Re: Mysogynist Bullshit
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 18:56:43 GMT

In article <michael.724530564@glia> michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael) writes:
>In <BzBK4p.9sD@news.cso.uiuc.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
>>sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell) writes:
>>> And, how do I maintain an
>>> erection while I am raping someone?
>>...Unfortunately, this is not a problem for all male humans. 
>>
>>(Read the rather graphic case reported in today's Chicago Tribune. It
>>unmade my whole day. :-( ) 
>
>I imagine that for those sick people who enjoy rape, many find it
>exciting and have no problem maintaining an erection.
>
>   Michael Stanley (michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu)

Once again, Lenore mistakeingly quoted the above lines.  They were part of
a joke between Hiener & Rini which I commented on.  I never said it
thankyou very much

Steve
From: ian@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk (Speed Freak)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: ABORTION IS MURDER
Date: 18 Dec 92 14:26:57 GMT
Organization: large

romingk@pell3l0.alleg.edu (Karl Rominger) writes:



>Just curious, how did this headline  initially make you react?

I thought, "Jesus Christ, here are the rantings of another loony"

It is also not true, as murder is the unlawful killing of a human being.
A human being is a man, woman or child, *not* a foetus.
However there is no point in arguing about such an emotive subject.

Ian.
-- 
Ian Crocker 					ian@cyborg.bt.co.uk
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine)
Subject: Re: Football: Robert Sheaffer's Central Metaphor?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 19:44:58 GMT

sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:

>In article <BzH3z2.40v@news.cso.uiuc.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
>>sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>>
>>>Yes, a well-paid female actress (for that is what these are), having
>>>an exciting, fast-paced life and undoubtedly dozens of highly attractive
>>>suitors, is *exploited* something fierce. We've got to make them stop
>>>doing this, for their own good. 
>>
>>This is the same argument that Jack Benny used, to defend his treatment
>>of Rochester. He said, "Rochester laughs all the way to the bank."

>So, I guess your argument is that women and blacks are too immature
>to know 'what's best for them.' If left to themselves, they might
>do something unwise, like children. And so it's necessary for 
>wise persons like yourself, who have their own best interests at
>heart, to step in and prevent women and blacks from acting unwisely.

>Can you say "patronizing"?

>        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com

Let me ask you a question: Do you wish racist portrayals were like those
of Rochester were back on TV? If they were, would you watch them
and enjoy them? Would you listen to commercials for such programs?

I suspect (and hope) the answer is no. Then you are voting with
your remote control, in the only way I am asking people to
vote against bimbo images -- that is, economically, not legally.

Another question: Do you think Rochester's wealth made the racist images
he portrayed morally (not legally) acceptable?

A final observation: I *do* think football degrades men. Much, much
more than women... 
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
From: sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell)
Subject: Re: Feminazi
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:04:43 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.122825.9452@iscsvax.uni.edu> wilson4450@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>
>Feminist! Just a bunch of Cum catchers!!!!
>

Another example of parents leaving their children unattended in the 
computer lab.  Sonny, do you know where your mommy is?

Steve R
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Why are many low-income women fat? (was Re: Separate but Equal?)
Date: 11 Dec 92 20:22:51 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <168BAA86B.SURGDM@mizzou1.missouri.edu> Diane writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.061814.21252@netcom.com>
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
> 
>>Weight lifting is anerobic. If you are fat and lift weights, you will
>>gain muscles under tha fat. But you will not get thin.
> 
>  Rich, can you make the leap of faith and recognize that it takes
>*energy* in the form of calories to build muscles?

Consider this, you could exercise -all- day, and not burn all the calories
contained in a milkshake and a burger. We all consume more calories than 
this, how is it that we are not all fat?
  
>>Fat joggers are rarely exercise enthusiasts. Swimming is good exercise,
>>but does not tend to burn body fat. And if they are really fat, then they
>>probably need to start with walking. For many people, jogging -is-
>>anerobic.
>>Methinks you could do with a bit more reading on the subject. You might
>>start with something by Covert Bailey.
> 
>Rich, I'm really not trying to pick on you, but I think *you're* the one
>who has some reading to do. Try sticking to hardline, factual, well-
>documented stuff such as basic physiology and excercise physiology texts.

What makes you think that I am not? What are your sources? 

>Maybe this will clear up your confusion about how calories are used.

You will find plenty of fat calorie counters, this alone does not work.

>BTW: the very act of living (just lying there, doing nothing but breathing,
>pumping blood and maintaining body temperature) takes an average of
>of 40 cals/hour.

Building muscle and tissue is not accomlished by calories alone. And
health and quality of life cannot be measured on a calorie scale.

>If the only way to burn calories was through exercise, physicians would
>not worry so much about chronically ill, bed-ridden patients getting
>enough calories, right?

Physicians are not responsible for your health, you are. They are mainly
responsible for your illnesses. And I think your example is far too general
to be specifically meaningfull. But to make a guess, I would imagine that
most "chronically ill, bed-ridden patients" have long since passed the
stage where they have a healthy appetite.
 
>Diane


Rich

payner@netcom.com
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Canada Massacre
Date: 11 Dec 92 10:21:07
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1992Dec11.171421.29022@netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: payner@netcom.com's message of Fri, 11 Dec 1992 17:14:21 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.171421.29022@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <1992Dec8.093925.9355@ac.dal.ca> egilmour@ac.dal.ca writes:
>> It is only natural to
>>individualize a kind of violence when it is so specific.  It is not
>>to say that other types of violence are not issues.  

>When was the last time that they recieved the same amount of attention?

Umm...right now, on this newsgroup, perhaps?

In any case, Rich, if you're so concerned about violence in general
getting attention, why are *you* spending time on the issue of violence
against women?  Why not just ignore it and spend the time working
against violence?

It's pretty amazing to me that people spend all this time trying to
convince *other* people to change the set of issues they choose to focus
on, rather than just working on those other issues themselves.  Why not
just let everyone choose the issues they are concerned about?

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
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Organization: QQQCLC
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 07:56:54 GMT

In article <1gth7bINNcfi@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>dgross@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu (Dave Gross) writes:
>>	"We men" are surrounded by violence from our circumcision in infancy
>>(no anaesthesia, thank you) to being bullied in elementary school; from trying
>>out for the football team in high school to registering for the draft; from
>>being several times more likely than our sisters to be murdered to watching
>>boxing on television; from visiting Arlington National Cemetery to running our
>>fingers along the Vietnam War Memorial.
>
>[additional examples deleted]
>
>So this gives you the right to do violence unto others???

	Now, that's what I call missing the point completely.

	You just don't get it :-).

						Kayembee
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:6090 soc.men:21207 soc.women:21501
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center
Date: Tuesday, 15 Dec 1992 16:16:41 EST
From: <RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Gender differences - Sophie Germain
 <1g2egpINN3dl@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> <2185@newsserver.cs.uwindsor.ca>
 <2199@newsserver.cs.uwindsor.ca> <michael.724427507@glia>
 <92350.085253RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET> <BzB8nD.3u8@news.cso.uiuc.edu>

-From: levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine)
-
-Mr. Parikh, no sensible feminist would deny that men, as well as women,
-are oppressed because of their gender.
-
  I know, and I thank you for noticing that.

-1) Women are, on the average, *more* oppressed because of their gender
-   than men.

   I suspect that probably you are right.  Of course an individual
man MAY be more oppressed than most females - e.g. someone who was drafted
into the Vietnam war and was killed there is presumably more oppresseed
than most women.

Rohit Parikh
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:6306 alt.dads-rights:3036 soc.men:21518 misc.legal:21573