HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: feminist sound bytes
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 01:54:43 GMT

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:

>Wait a sec, the stats Bronis Vidugiris posted earlier show about as many
>male victims of domestic violence as female victims. Note further that
>in both surveys, the reported number for "severe violence" has more male 
>victims.
>
>At any rate, these two surveys show roughly equivalant domestic violence
>directed against both sexes. The third is useless for comparison.

I've seen Bronis' statistics a number of times, so I thought I'd add
my own.  These are from the National Survey of Families and Households,
which was carried out in 1988.
                                               Men        Women
Perpetrators:
Respondent ever hit/threw/shoved spouse:      63.6%        62.0%
Respondent cut, bruised, or seriously
injured spouse:                                6.5%         8.6%

Victims:
Spouse ever hit/threw/shoved respondent:      56.3%        62.2%
Spouse ever cut, bruised, or seriously
injured respondent:                            6.5%        15.9%

From these numbers, it is fairly clear that women have a broader
defintion of violence than men.  Only 6.5% of men claim to have
seriously injured a spouse, but 16% of women claim to have been
seriously injured.  Interestingly, it works the other way too.  More
women claim to be abusers than there are abused husbands.

If you go by victim's reports only, women are much more often abused,
especially seriously abused.  

If you go by the perpetrators word, the levels of abuse are similar, with 
women committing slightly more of the serious injuries.

Official statistics show the heavy slant towards wife abuse, of
course.  The average yearly rate of wife abuse is 2.7 per 1000 as
compared to 0.2 for husband abuse. (Sourcebook of Criminal Justice
Studies, 1984.)  This probably reflects, to an unknown extent, the 
greater tendency for males not to report abuse. 

Finally, of homicide victims who were killed by their spouse, 40% were
husbands killed by wives; 60% were wives killed by husbands.  In some
cases, the wives killing of the husband "has been justified on the
grounds of long-term physical abuse at his hands." (Source: Family
Violence.  Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report. 1982.)

rini
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: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 20:41:55 GMT

In article <1992Dec9.165938.15284@cs.cornell.edu> jean@cs.cornell.edu (Jean M. Petrosino) writes:
>Check out the politics that surround this issue--it is more expensive it eat
>properly, and to know how to eat properly.  

This is not true, buy most of your foods at the vegetable counter (the
cheapest section in the store) and you will have a low-fat diet high in
nutrients. As for cost, I am pretty sure that most can afford a library
card.

>                                            I don't think it's a coincidence 
>that we as a society idolize thinness, particularly on the part of women.  
>Historically, the less attainable (and mostly more expensive) body image is 
>that time's ideal body type.  

So what is it that you propose, a conspiracy?

>                              For example, in many countries where starvation
>runs rampant, the heavier a woman is, the more attractive she is considered to
>be.  In America today, where food is generally plentiful, women (and men) are
>expected to be thin.  Therefore, a heavy poor woman is viewed with the 
>ultimate distaste as Robert Schaeffer illustrated.

I am not sure I follow you. Most women are seeking what -they- consider
an ideal weight, and surveys have shown that this is not what men would
consider ideal. The survey I recall found that the men thought that women
would ideally weigh more than the ideal weight given by the women. 


Rich

payner@netcom.com
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: why poor women are obese
Date: 14 Dec 1992 23:05:05 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:

>In article <1gg9reINN64b@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>"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.

When I was a kid my home was not -- how shall I say it -- the most 
stable environment and less than conducive to study.  I used to go to
the public library almost every night.  It was open till 11:00 pm.
I usually stayed there doing homework until closing time.  It was 
safer than going home.

This was in California, pre-Prop. 13.

The same library is now open a couple of mornings a week, 2:00-5:00
6 afternoons a week, and one evening (either Tuesday or Thursday, I
can't remember -- after all, I no longer live in that neighborhood)
till 8:00 pm.  I don't know where the "disadvantaged" kids study
nowadays.


-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: I'm So Confused
Date: 14 Dec 92 01:15:41 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Dec10.165324.1@woods.ulowell.edu> moranc@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>I am so truly confused.  Feminism is a word that many people fear and
>misunderstand. I'm reading some of the posts about women and sinks and 
>other bullshit and all i can say is "What the fuck is wrong with people?"
>How's this:
>	1. Women have it shitty.
>	2.  Men have it shitty.
>	3.  But these are two different types of shitty.
>My understanding of feminism is that women and men who are 
>aggravated by #1. try to figure out how to fix it (there are also
>occasional bitching sessions).  Why is this so bad?  
>
>I am sick of being catagorized by my beliefs.  

What is the problem with this? I would say that this is far more accurate
than categorization by sex or physical attributes. If you claim to be a 
Christian, would you not be upset if those who had heard your claim treated 
you as a follower of Satan? 

>                                               And I am angry as hell at the 
>"patriarchy"  but most of the men who I know and love don't believe the bull-
>shit.  So who can I yell at?  What can I do with my anger, energy, passion, 
>and frustration? 

Channel it into some productive channel if at all possible. 

>I have one last dillema, I hate to be treated as a sex object.  I have been
>close to murdering people who yell" Hey Nice Tits (ass, legs, cunt,whatever)"
>out of car windows.  BUT, at the same point, I like it when men that I like
>find me attractive. Is there an inherent conflict in wanting to be an
>attractive woman while not being a sex object? 

>                                               I think it is a control thing
>I only want men to find me attractive if I want them to find me attractive.

Sounds like a "control thing" to me.
 
>			I'm still confused, but less so, 
>					ctm


Rich

payner@netcom.com
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:6118 soc.men:21248 soc.women:21533
From: michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Gender differences - Sophie Germain
Date: 16 Dec 92 17:54:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: glia.michael.724528454
Organization: University of Washington

In <92350.085253RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET> <RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:

>  Here is an interesting bit from the Colliers Encyplodia about the Titanic
>disater, 1912.  Of the women and children on the ship 70% got into lifeboats
>and survived.  Of the men on the ship, 20% survived.  Of crew members,
>24% survived.  Among the dead were several quite well known, wealthy and
>powerful men.   But there were not enough lifeboats and women were
>given preference over men.

>  Being a man isn't always piece of cake.  True, most of the senators are
>men, but so are most of the people in prisons - and there are far more
>people in prisons than in the senate!   Women do earn les than men do, but
>I suspect that the rate of death and injury from employment is much higher
>for men than it is for women.  So let us for heaven's sake, look for the
>welfare of BOTH sexes and stop pretending that men are living in some
>kind of paradise that women are denied access to.

No one is pretending that at all Rohit.  At least no one I see here.
What is going on is that women and some men are complaining about unfair
advantages being given men over women in many areas women want an
equal chance in.

If you don't like women being given unfair advantages in sinking ships,
by all means go protest.  And if you are on a sinking ship, protest on
the spot.  But just because there is *some* injustice against men does
NOT nor will it EVER excuse injustice against the women.  Injustice is
simply wrong no matter who suffers.

So please take your accusation that we are pretending that men are living
a paradise (and I'm a man by the way) and go back and reread the posts.
You are reading things into what is being posted that simply aren't there.

Women ARE looking out for their welfare.  If you think the men should do
that then by all means -- go do it.

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.

    Michael Stanley (michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: Feminism's Lesbian Leaders (was: Why are there only men on)
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 17:37:05 GMT

sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:

>Then there's Catharine MacKinnon, who we Americans foolishly
>allowed to shove her version of "sexual harassment" regulations down
>our throat. I'm not privy to the details of MacKinnon's private life,
>but I do know that in her writings she uses the term "heterosexual"
>the same way Rush Limbaugh uses the term "Goddamn Commie pinko faggot
>queer"; in other words, to MacKinnon, "heterosexual" is a term of
>abuse.  So here is clearly another lesbian. 

I'm pretty sure she's het.

>Morgan, the editor of "Ms.", the largest-circulation feminist
>magazine. Again, I am not privy to the details of her sexual
>life. However, she calls "the family" a "disease" ("Demon Lover",
>p. 316), says the most horrendous things about men - they all
>love death, etc. - and repeatedly praises lesbianism. So one
>must infer from her own statements that she's a lesbian, as well.

No, she's married to a guy.

Check yer facts Bob.  It's no good spreading falsehoods.

rini

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell)
Subject: Making Trouble
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 18:27:16 GMT

What do people think of the various "men's" groups ( ie Robert Bly)
and what do people think of the various "goddess cults"/feminist
religions being created?

x

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell)
Subject: PIV and Other Fun:)
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 18:48:38 GMT

Article 4521 of alt.feminism:
Newsgroups: alt.sex,alt.feminism,talk.abortion
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Alternate Sexual Activities as Birth Control

lip@s1.gov ( Loren Petrich) writes:

	It was mentioned by one poster that some German feminists
suggest sexual activities other than penis-in-vagina (PIV) sexual
intercourse as a method of birth control.

	I certainly agree that that is a worthwhile alternative, I
would also like to note that there is a distinct absence of this in
the mainstream of debates on sex education here in the USA. If the
Planned Parenthood blurb occasionally posted in talk.abortion is any
indicator, then even PP does not seem to have any horizons broader
than PIV sex, although I would be be happy to be proved wrong there.
And are any other countries more enlightened in that respect than we
poor Americans are?


	Around the time people were discussing to allow the advertising
	of condoms on tv I watched an episode of NIGHTLINE in which
	Ted Copple asked the leader of some Christian group that if she
	was convinced that most people wouldnt practice abstinance if
	she would allow condoms to be distributed in schools to prevent
	deaths.  She said no.  I cant imagine trying to suggest to these
	people using alt.sex gratification ( they probally dont even -
	know what they are) when they feel threatened by a lousy condom
	commercial *chuckle*





	Any comments?

	Many of those methods you mentioned are fun:), but they arent
	disease proof which frightens me more then pregnancy.  Pregnancy
	doesnt need to be a problem with Ru2486, it can work like a 
	morning after pill---almost,BUT   it conflicts with someone's
	book:).   I read a report in which the american drug companies
	are salivating over the potential profits but they are scared of
	massive boycotts by christian customers.  They are basically waiting
	for the other guy to stick his head out.

Steve R
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Candada Massacre
Date: 11 Dec 92 10:16:35
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<MUFFY.92Dec7143235@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<1992Dec11.170600.28063@netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: payner@netcom.com's message of Fri, 11 Dec 1992 17:06:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.170600.28063@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <MUFFY.92Dec7143235@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec7.185518.3508@kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca> HGERBER@vm.ucs.UAlberta.CA (Hjalmar) writes:
>>   sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell) writes:
>>	   Im glad you posted this.  Violence against women is a problem.
>>     Why not simply  "Violence is a problem." ?
>>
>>Violence *is* a problem.  Violence against women is a *different*
>>problem, with different causes, and, probably, different solutions.

>Solving the problem of violence in general will also solve the problem
>of violence against women (tm) will it not?

Perhaps.  However, that doesn't mean that people will all choose to work
on such a large problem.  If you agree that they are different problems,
then why shouldn't people choose to work on one that they feel more
strongly about, or which they feel is more soluble in the short term?

>>Women are singled out as targets by many violent people, and this is a
>>problem disctinct from the problem of violence in general.

>Posted statistics have shown that men are more often the victims of
>violence, and that women hit men about as often as men hit women. What
>exactly is it you are referring too?

I didn't say anything about frequency.  I said that many violent
incidents against women happen specifically because they are women.
What are you having trouble understanding in that?  If you look back at
the original incident in Canada, the person killed those people
*specifically* because they were women.

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: mccall3080@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: poor women and obesity
Date: 15 Dec 92 02:42:22 -0600
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

        I have read ALL the posts about why poor women are obese and I seem to
see one major thing missed by everyone.  Here we all are worrying about how
much food costs and getting exercise.  All of that is irrevelant in my mind. 
Think about it.  What do most people do when they are unhappy?  They don't tend
to take as great of care of themselves and they tend to overeat.
        I am not saying this as a slam, but I am saying this from experience. 
My family was raised without any money.  Not enough for anything even for fun. 
We had very little pleasures in life, but the one thing that does give people
pleasure and doesn't cost very much is food and most likely food that isn't
good for you.
        Along with that people who are poor do not have much confidence in
themselves.  Circumstances have brought them down.  Now, when you don't feel
good about yourself do you think you are going to worry about eating properly
and appearing good to others?  No, you have gotten past that point.  You are
told and feel that you are worth shit and so you don't care if you look like it
either.  What else would people expect.
        Someone mentioned being too tired to exercise.  This too is true.  Life
can be very emotionally draining when you are constantly worrying about how you
are going to survive.  Finding the time to worry about something so trivial as
exercising would be rare.
        One last thing I would like to mention is that good food is expensive. 
The meat that is cheap has higher fat.  Vegetables are not filling and is not
cheap.  The foods that are cheap and filling are pastas and breads and
unfortunately they put on the weight fast.

Melissa
A woman raised in poverty and understands why it happens
From: ringo@icad.com (Amy Gorin)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: What's Innate and What Ain't and So On (was: Re: Entry level salar
Date: 15 Dec 92 23:07:36 GMT
	<92338.134326RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET> <1992Dec4.104939.9383@fys.ruu.nl>
	<92339.125410RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Organization: ICAD Inc., Cambridge, MA

In article <92339.125410RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET> RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET writes:

   ->     I think that depends.  As far as I can tell, men have dominated chess
   ->and Math because men ARE on the whole better at these things.  I really
   ->do not know of evidence that women have been prevented from playing chess
   ->or doing Math. 

My father taught me how to play chess when I was about 5.  He died when I was 9.  When 
I was 11, I took a class in chess for kids at a local youth/activity/etc. center.

The instructor told my mother that I was capable of tournament competition, and
offered to give me private lessons (gratis).  My mother decided it was too dangerous
and unseemly for an 11/12-year-old female to be alone for long periods of time with
an unmarried male in his 20's.  

I high school I joined the chess club.  One of my fellow club members offered
to practice with me after school, and we wound up giving in to raging adolescent
hormones instead of playing chess (I guess mom was right).

People I have played with since have told me that I could have
competed, but, of course, I haven't had any practice for almost 15
years.  To play master's-level chess requires starting at a very young
age, and continuing to practice throughout life.

Now you have evidence.

-ringo

(You should note that there are now female chess masters in the younger
age ranges.  I expect their numbers will only increase as time goes by.)
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: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 03:55:52 GMT

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

>>I just hate to see the misconception that "fat" and "fit" are 
>>non-intersecting sets. 
 
>How about the misconception that fat people are healthy? 

Hmm.  Can't say that I've run across that generalization.  But if 
that's a misconception you want to fight, more power to you.  

rini

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Football: Robert Sheaffer's Central Metaphor?
Date: 20 Dec 92 20:35:14 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <michael.724789235@glia> michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael) writes:
>In <1992Dec18.193705.12869@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec16.232603.3881@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>>>	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.
>
>Personally I don't care whether men or women are dressed scantily
>or in sexually provocative ways.  I don't care if men or women do
>strip acts on stage.  I don't care if men or women appear partially
>clothed or complete nude in magazines.  If those men and women choose
>to do so for money, that is THEIR decision and not anyone elses to
>object to.
>
>If however our culture leaves men or women with no other choice than
>to do these things for money AND these acts invade the actors
>privacy or cause psychological harm, 
                  ------------------

By who's determination? If the strippers do not object, but others
do, what then? 

>                                        then I think we need to take
>a look at our system and fix the problem.  

Who is "we", and how would such a problem be fixed? If you have spent
20 years as a stripper, and have no other talents, todays job market 
will be unlikely to treat you kindly. Anyone with no job skills will
have the same problem however.

>                                         So long as these things are
>done by free choice, it is not exploitation.

Not according to some oft-quoted feminists.
 
>I will however object to kids in pornography.  

>                                               I also object to the
>way women are often portrayed in erotica as helpless or mindless.
>I enjoy seeing strong women every bit as often as helpless women.
>Frankly I get pretty damn tired of seeing helpless women waiting on
>men.

But strong women are not often portrayed as having relationships,
or choosing to do things for men. In fact, the strong women that I
recall on TV are full of clever rejoinders and always beat the cheating
men at their own game. There are some exceptions, but I stress the
word exception.
 
>     Michael Stanley (michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu)


Rich

payner@netcom.com
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Women in Mathematics: One Final Thought
Date: 11 Dec 1992 22:10:32 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:

>Question of the day: was Bill Gates a schoolyard bully?  

Ross Perot still is.
						--  M.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women
From: sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell)
Subject: Men & Women, "Males & Females"
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 16:21:55 GMT

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

Recently a woman on the net complained about some man using the term "female"
in leiu of "woman".

My guess is this all started by feminists who when commenting upon
gender got tired of saying "men and boys" all of the time and just
started using the term "male".

Anyone else have an opinion?