HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: Football: Robert Sheaffer's Central Metaphor?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 19:37:05 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.232603.3881@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>
>	I have finally come across what seems to be the dominating
>metaphor in Robert Sheaffer's thoughts on relations between the sexes.
>I think that he continually makes analogies to pro football (American

Gawrsh, I *never* thotuv that! Maybe I should sit down and watch a
football game sometime, so I can better understand Loren's deep
insight here. I attended a few football games when I was in
high school, and I think I even went to one in college once, but not
since then. I don't watch the games on TV, either; it's wonderful how uncrowded
the roads, shopping malls, etc. are when the 49ers are playing, and
I'd hate to pass up such a fine opportunity to get out and do things.
And Superbowl Sunday is the very best day to go visit a normally-crowded 
tourist attraction.

>	Women in football? Always as cheerleaders, who are usually
>scantily clad sex objects. They are not really important to the game,
>it must be said. I personally have nothing against exhibitionism in
>principle, just against exploitation.

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. Frankly, I think they should
all be forced to wear the chador (sp?), like the cheerleaders at
Teheran State U.

Yes, feminism and prudery, cut from the same cloth.

>
>
>	Those concerned about sexism will also find football
>objectionable, though that might be corrected by setting up all-female
>football leagues.

And even if such were done, would anybody actually *pay money* to watch
the games? The audience wants the thrill of macho action, so unless you
can get some of your Diesel Dyke friends from Berkeley to turn pro,
the fans would be laughing themselves silly at the dainty way the
game was being played.

-- 
  
        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)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.dads-rights,soc.men,misc.legal
From: kpscarr@leland.Stanford.EDU (Karen Pelton Scarr)
Subject: Re: False allegations of abuse / Chesler's book...
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 92 17:15:18 GMT

In article <1992Dec20.074729.195@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>In article <1992Dec20.014604.17592@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>>noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes...
>>AA> Anyway, the book instructs women on how to make accusations of
>>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>AA> abuse, the virtues of lying in order to get sole custody--you know, the
>>    ^^^^^^
>>AA> normal, level-headed, rape, pillage and burn, "`for the sake of the
>>AA> children' women MUST be the sole custodian" spiel.
>>
>>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
>
>	Nope, not in the US. There is nothing illegal about a "how-to"
>book for crime. Nor should there be.
>
>						Kayembee

Couldn't the book possibly be considered solicitation to commit a crime (not
that I am *advocating* such a view, mind you!)?  Remember the Dr. Spock "burn
your draft card" case?  (Or did one have to solicit a particular person?)

KP
 
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:6270 soc.women:21694
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women
Subject: Re: Men & Women, "Males & Females"
Date: 19 Dec 1992 23:47:39 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell) writes:

>I've noticed that many men ( sometimes myself ) get very annoyed by
>women/feminists referring to them excluisively as "males".

 have had people make comments to me along those lines, when I've 
used "the male" in my posts, rather than "the man".  I tend to do
it without thinking, as I consider the two terms equivalent.  I also
don't mind people using "the female" instead of "the woman".  In fact,
I didn't even notice it until it was pointed out to me.

I doubt that most people intend either term as an insult.


-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women,soc.men,talk.philosophy.misc
From: peterson@CS.ColoState.EDU (james peterson)
Subject: Re: Arab preservation of "european" thought
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 22:03:05 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Computer Science Department

In article <Bz3vop.FK8@nic.umass.edu> quilty@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Humberto Humbertoldi) writes:
>
>I should have written more clearly... I was a little wrapped up in
>waxing poetic about the Arab influence... but I still really do think
>that the importation of Greek antiquity to Western Europe took
>predominantly the western path through Iberia.
>

It is at least true that many of the great written works of the ancient world
(ancient Greece especially) only survived because of the survival of
their Arab translations.

Many of the original texts (including Plato and Aristotle) were lost, and 
did not resurface until around the 15th Century (whence the "re-naissance").
Up to that time, only the Arabs had access to many of the original works.


-- 
james lee peterson				peterson@CS.ColoState.edu
dept. of computer science                       
colorado state university		"Some ignorance is invincible."
ft. collins, colorado  (voice:303/491-7137; fax:303/491-6639)
From: dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg)
Subject: Re: Women in Mathematics: One Final Thought
Organization: New Mexico State University
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:15:47 GMT

In article <1ge3d0INNm23@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg) writes:
>
>>  This actually is the best point I've ever seen Robert make.  As
>>someone who spent 7 years of his life being beat up on a regular
>>basis, it does put something like Barbie into perspective.  However,
>>there is the question of the kind of adversary that these things are.
>>It could be possible that getting beat up could lead someone to
>>venture further into the world of books. 
>
>Firstly, girls *do* get beat up, not just boys.

Yeah, but I would have to ask if this is nearly as common of an
occurance.  In the same way that being sexually harrassed is a basic
life experience for women, being beat up is a standard life exp. for
male nerds...

>Secondly, I myself used to hide in the library during recess
>to avoid the bullies.  So it's fair to say that getting beat up
>*did* lead me to "venture further into the world of books".

Good to hear :@)
>
>
>-- 
>
>                                                --  Michal
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Of course there's no reason!  
-David "ZZYZX" Steinberg- King of the ellipses
       (dsteinbe@emmy.nmsu.edu)
**********************************************************************
*"There's a dog in the station  *"I can't believe I'm a junior and a *
* With a bad reputation         * film major, when all I really      *
* That's a sign of the nation's * wanted in this life was to marry a *
* Decay"                        * lobsterman and cook fish."         *
* -Phish                        * -a letter from Christie Searing    *
**********************************************************************


Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women,soc.men
From: jay@UUSERV.CC.UTAH.EDU (Jay Deuel)
Subject: Re: Going Down the Mine
Organization: University of Utah Computer Center
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:26:23 GMT

>
> Fifty-eight female office workers in Sudbury, some over 50 years
>old, must go underground and mine nickel if they want to keep
>working, Inco Ltd. has ordered.
>'It's suicide', says Shirley Erkila, 44, who's been an Inco clerk
>for 16 years. 'I'm scared. We're all scared. We're devastated. It's
>insensitive. It's terrible.'
>'None of us want to do it but we're being forced to do it', said
>Erkila, who knows the 'dirty' job is also dangerous and difficult.
>'I don't want to go down there.'
>
Maybe they should just lay off excess employees, or go out of business.  I 
would hate to see them "force" these women to do something they don't want 
to do, even if they're paying the salaries! =)

--Jay
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: CALLING ALL WOMEN..WHERE ARE YOU?
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 02:48:35 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.192430.25486@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>  (It's pretty clear that my 
>unnatural heterosexual impulse came about from these experiences...

I wouldn't mind heterosexuals so much if you all just didn't flaunt it
so.  I mean, what you do in the privacy of your own homes is your
business, but why do the rest of us have to be exposed to your rampant
heterosexuality?  If you all would just learn to be discreet... 

Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women,soc.men
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Hooray!!
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 23:14:48 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.192442.6551@netcom.com> tyger@netcom.com (Kristen Kohlbecker) writes:
>farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>>IMO, this shows a severe lack of understanding as to what
>>transexualism is.  
>
>Oh now *there's* a revelation! You're right, ljf, I haven't the foggiest what
>it's like to feel like I am trapped in the body of the "wrong" sex, but is 
>there something wrong with that? It's outside of my experience.

Your post seemed to have no sympathy for Wendy or transexuals in
general, just your abrasive comments as to how, if it's so painful,
Wendy should remain a (biological) man who works for women's causes
(like Fitch, who isn't a transexual).

>Wendy, the aforementioned transexual, didn't seem to take nearly as much 
>offense from my words as you did. I certainly meant no offense, and I'm glad
>that at least the person I was addressing understood that, or seemed to.

So, Wendy is nicer than I am.  I thought your post was thoughtless and
rude.  If a post that starts with, "Oh good grief..." isn't meant to
offend, perhaps you could start with a more sympathetic approach.

>>For you to suggest that Wendy should just be a champion of women's
>>causes shows ignorance of the fact that to Wendy, it's not _just_ women's
>>causes, but first and foremost being a woman that matters to her.
>
>Yes, well I don't know a heck of a lot about the Mormon religion either, but
>at least my Mormon friends and Wendy are tolerant of my (fumbling?) attempts
>to understand. You could learn something from them, ljf.         

Ahem.  And you couldn't learn something from the nice response to your
abrasive post?

Do you also say things to your Mormon friends like, "Oh good grief...
If Mormons encounter discrimination, why are you Mormons in the first
place?"

>>You're pushing causes when Wendy is concerned with identity.
>
>I'm not pushing anything...you're the only one that has some kind of agenda
>here, which seems to be, "How dare you discuss that which you do not 
>understand!" Well, you got me dead to rights...I haven't a clue what 
>transexualism is all about, but I'm trying to come to an understanding. I'm 
>sorry that you seem to think that I ought to just leave what I don't 
>understand alone.

No, I'm saying that when you write a post that is so abrasive and
judgmental about something you know nothing about, you're going to be
called on it by people less nice than Wendy (*nudge*nudge* you know,
people like you and me).

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine)
Subject: Re: Why are many low-income women fat? (was Re: Separate but Equal?)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 19:27:31 GMT

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:

>How about the misconception that fat people are healthy? Most fat people
>that I have known have plenty of problems, their feet always hurt, they seem
>to catch every cold that goes around, some have back problems, etc...

I'm fat, proud of it, healthy, and look 10 years younger than I am!

Not as "fit" as I'd like to be, though. :-(

>Perhaps you are confusing 'fat' and 'healthy'. Not all fat people are
>unhealthy, but a greater percentage than normal are.

Not true for people whose weight is *moderately* over the weight
tables. They are just as healthy as thin people, if not more so.

True, to a certain extent, of extremely large people. But (at least
according to the study I read) they are no more unhealthy (on the
average) than people slightly under the weight tables. 

I know when I look around the math department, I see a lot of
people (e.g., graduate students) under pressure because of
exams, and a lot of people (graduate students and professors)
who work too hard. If these people are fat, they tend to
get fatter; if they are thin, they tend to get thinner. Either
way they don't look real good; but it's only the fat ones
who think of themselves as unhealthy.

I've also seen a lot of large people (e.g., office people) who 
look fine. Then they go on a diet, look like hell for a few
months, then gain the weight back...
 
What is really making me stark, raving furious about this
weight issue? Well, I'll be getting my Ph.D. (hopefully)
some time in 1994; and I plan to be job hunting next fall.
What are my chances of hitting some interviewers (even for a 
very technical position) who use my supposed "unhealthiness" as 
an excuse for not hiring me, because I'm not a babe!

!(&*$#&*()!!  $#*)&**!*!@!!

Lenore Levine
levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.dads-rights,soc.men,misc.legal
From: srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller)
Subject: Re: False allegations of abuse / Chesler's book...
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 16:01:04 GMT

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

>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...

I don't think they will.  How-to books on crime are usually protected
by the First Amendment.  Books that include proprietary information
have been seized, but the issue is not the same.

>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.

It's a good distinction.  For what it's worth, in law school the
professors (notably Nadine Strossen, president of ACLU) usually
suggested what they called "counterspeech."  That is, if A writes a
how-to book on crime, B can write a book deploring how-to books on
crime and the people that apply A's lessons.  Theoretically, the
members of an enlightened society see the wisdom of one book over
the other (whichever they decide is which), and make an informed
decision about their actions.

>The distinction is *very* important, and I
>apologise if you feel that I am nitpicking with you.

Don't apologize; it is an important distinction, and sometimes gets
lost in the yelling.
-- 
Stevens R. Miller J.D.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: Why are many low-income women fat? (was Re: Separate but Equal?)
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 17:00:30 GMT

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>>>It depends of how fit you are. 
  
>>What depends on how fit you are?  Whether or not you can be called 
>>"fat"?  Well if you want to argue that no fit person is fat and vice
>>versa, no wonder you claim to see no fat exercise enthusiasts.
 
>If a fit person and a fat person go running together, chances are that
>the fit person is getting aerobic exercise, and the fat person is not.
>If you are very fit, heavy exercise may well be aerobic.

I just hate to see the misconception that "fat" and "fit" are 
non-intersecting sets. 

rini
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: Ayn Rand (was: Robert's "Book")
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 15:54:28 GMT

In article <Bz0470.870@nic.umass.edu> quilty@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Humberto Humbertoldi) writes:
>
>Amongst my students, at least, it is the self-same people who call
>themselves liberatarian and quote Ayn Rand.  This may not be
>ubiquitious, I'll admit.  I'm not sure what you mean that Ayn Rand
>broke with liberatarianism, since she was dead before "liberatarian"
>took on the particular meaning (often asscociated w/ the party of the
>same name) it has in late 20th C. America.  If some of her followers
>made this break, it hardly means that others did not.  

Quite wrong. Rand died in 1982, the Libertarian Party became an official
political party in 1972. In several of her writings she quite
explicitly lambastes the libertarians, who she accuses of stealing
her ideas. 

And if you even MENTION the Libertarians to any of Ayn Rand's true-
believing disciples today, they will quickly show you to the door.
David Kelley, once a promising objectivist thinker, was Excommunicated
from the movement because he spoke at a Libertarian Supper Club.
Petr Beckmann was dumped from editorship of an Objectivist
publication for consorting with libertarians.


>I don't think that R.Sheaffer deserves the same kind of respectful
>treatment my students do.

:disrespect ON.

You goddamn dickhead, you probably mess up your students' education
as badly as you messed up your history here on Usenet. You don't
know WHAT the fuck you're talking about, but that's never stopped
you from your diarreah-of-the-mouth. You shithead Marxists don't
even care what the facts are, you're just so sure you know what's
hot and what's not. Why don't you go to North Korea, they'd still
appreciate you there.

:disrespect OFF.
-- 
  
        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)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women,soc.men
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Sophie Germain - Gender Differences
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 23:34:52 GMT

In article <BzIuDz.A6C@news.cso.uiuc.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
[...---...]
 
>Let me also, since I'm already on my soapbox, talk about another 
>argument you advanced in a different posting. I do not think 
>that there is something wrong in *general* because an occupation
>is overwhelmingly of one gender. 

This is the prime -discrimination- indicator used by a number of feminists
and watchdog groups. How many times has the number of women in Congress
been used as a telling point? 

>                                     I do think in *particular*, that
>mathematics is not welcoming enough to people of nonstandard
>backgrounds -- not only women, but other individuals who are the wrong
>age or social class. I think there are a lot of obstacles to
>becoming a research mathematician, that overemphasize speed,
>memorization, energy and endurance, and don't have enough to do with
>an actual ability to create mathematics. 

Publish or perish, I always thought it was a bad idea, but it is a
reality. Oddly, there is nothing preventing one from doing mathamatics
at their own spare time at home. Of course, you will not get paid for it.
 
>For these reasons, I am in favor of institutions like Mills College's
>summer research program in mathematics, for talented female
>undergraduates. I just wish more such programs were available, and
>available to other individuals of nonstandard backgrounds.

It's only sexism if it's to the advantage of white males, I keep forgetting.
Do you imagine that a "summer research program in mathematics, for talented"
male "undergraduates" would be well recieved or precieved as non-sexist?
I suspect women everywhere would be in an uproar.

What does it mean when the solution is identical to the problem? 


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Xref: sparky alt.feminism:6089 soc.men:21206 soc.women:21500
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center
Date: Tuesday, 15 Dec 1992 16:02:18 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>
 <MATT.92Dec15123624@physics.berkeley.edu>


-
-There's a third point to make as well: rigid sex roles hurt both men
-and women, and those sex roles are what feminism is fighting against.
-Someone who is really concerned with the way that men in our culture
-are forced into unhealthy roles---someone, that is, who really thinks
-that "women and children first" is offensive---ought to be part of the
-feminist movement, rather than an enemy of it.

    I would not consider myself either a friend or an enemy of the feminist
movement.  I am in sympathy with some of its aims and skeptical of some
others.   What I do believe is that choices are affected by both culture
and biology.  It is important to avoid stereo-types if that means that
one's choices are severely restricted or false presuppositions are made
about what one likes or is likely to like.  On the other hand we do rely
on others for some guidance; after all feminists rely on other feminists
for that, because we LIVE in society and really do not exist as independent
beings.  While it does sometimes make sense to say, `I was influenced into
this against my natural inclinations' it does not make sense to talk of
what I would have liked if there had been no influence at all!  I hope you
see what I mean.

  Incidentally, I suspect that one of the reasons that men do not complain
about discrimination against males is that men are brought up to feel that
complaining is not masculine.  There MAY be a biological element here.
I can whine and complain with the best of them, but I find it almost
impossible to cry!!  Women seem to find it quite easy.  is that something
in which you can be influenced?  Or is it quite natural like sneezing?

-
-In other words: oppression of both sexes goes together, and fighting
-for equality benefits everyone.
-
  It 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.
-
---
-Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a

Rohit Parikh
Newsgroups: alt.feminism