HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: Re: AA-related ramblings
Organization: mydog in exile
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 20:55:02 GMT

In article <93012.055347RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET> <RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
| 
| ... Freud is wrong when he says, `anatomy is destiny'.  But he is not wholly
| wrong.  He should say, more cautiously,  `biology is an important factor, and
| as much for men as for women.'  If you ignore biology, you will never
| understand the kids in Newark who steal cars and do extremely dangerous
| tricks with them.
| 
| Rohit Parikh

Yes, but which "biology"?  The human construction, full of
assumptions and necessarily informed by the cultures in
which it exists, or its object, a never-to-be-fully-
understood system of phenomena?

-- 

 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Nancy Lebovitz)
Subject: Re: AA-related ramblings
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 04:10:32 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.154501.23918@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>| ...
>| AA is at least teaching segments of the society that had otherwise
>| never experienced discrimination based on gender what it's like. 
>| Sauce for the gander, as it were.
>| 
>| Think maybe NOW we can all agree that it's wrong?
>
>But almost no one thinks it's right or good.  The question 
>is whether it's a worse evil than the evils it is supposed 
>to cure or mitigate.  The teaching aspect seems peripheral,
>by the way, since it focuses the resentment of the victim
>on the law rather than on the underlying condition which
>gave rise to the law.  For example, a white person who is 
>done out of a desirable job because it had to be given to 
>a black person resents black people and the affirmative
>action law, rather than the racism which was the cause of
>the law and the discrimination which was its pretext.
>
>The clever thing would be to come up a cure for the
>problems of discrimination which was neither quotizing
>affirmative action nor handwaving.

I think that the general structure of the solution would be
to find a way to teach people how to pay attention to each
other's personal abilities, temperments and emotions, rather
than crude and (for many purposes) arbitrary racial, ethnic,
and gender divisions. Any ideas about what the specifics of
such a program might be?

Nancy Lebovitz
nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: sam@sad.hp.com (Vicky Hansen)
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 14:58:07 GMT
Organization: HP Sonoma County (SRSD/MWTD/MID)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL7]

Eric Pepke (pepke@dirac.scri.fsu.edu) wrote:
: In article <C0C4L0.2EA@srgenprp.sr.hp.com> sam@sad.hp.com (Vicky Hansen) writes:
: >I doubt if the majority of mass murderer's mothers deliberately raised their
: >children to be violent.  I also question the fact that fathers seem to be
: >out of this picture (especially since I suspect you are male).
: 
: This is actually a fairly important point.  Much of the violence amongst
: young people is related to children growing up in homes without a father.
: The boys especially become alienated because they don't have someone to
: talk to about how to grow up into a man.
: 
: The fact that Rich is male, of course, has nothing to do with it.

I disagree.  Rich's article blamed mothers for children's upbringing and
did not blame fathers.  I feel both parents have an obligation to raise
the children.  I feel that men (including Rich) need to recognize the
fact that they are also responsible.  Some of those homes without fathers
are due to the fact that the men abondonded the family so if the assumption is
that single mother households are the problem, it is the father's fault, not
the mother's (I happen to disagree with the assumption).
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Feminism's Lesbian Leaders (was: Why are there only men on)
Organization: LLNL
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 21:40:42 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.195235.23012@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>In article <1993Jan06.004608.22218@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
: 
: My point was that lesbians [women who have sexual relationships 
: exclusively with other women] do not necessarily lack experience
: in hetero relationships by observation or by participation.
>
>True. And the very fact that they have abandoned the "het world" and
>its lifestyle strongly suggests that they found it to be quite distasteful.
>So their advice to other women is NOT going to be "useful advice on
>how to live your life among men", but rather more like "how to shaft
>those male scum, and live like us!"

	Robert Sheaffer, why do you think that lesbians are
man-haters? Maybe they just like making love with other women better.
And on the subject of feminism, lesbianism, and man-hating, some
feminists claim that it is heterosexual women who are the biggest
man-haters of all, because who are the ones who have to live with men?

	You might want to ask in soc.motss sometime; the lesbians
there don't seem like a bunch of man-haters.

	There is a difference between:

	Having a sexual preference for the same sex

	and

	Hating members of the opposite sex

	And as to some women preferring to be with other women, how is
that any worse than "male bonding"? I've known a lot of heterosexual
men who prefer being around men to being around women.

	And Robert Sheaffer, why are you so _sensitive_ about this
-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: Feminism's Lesbian Leaders (was: Why are there only men on)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 18:53:22 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.011853.13768@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>>    (Sheaffer)
>>is caused by having to spend time in the company of men, because men
>>are absolute shits . Hence, het women *must* hate them, from spending so
>>much time in that vile company. At least those of us who are *uncompromising*
>>feminists, we Lesbians, we few, we happy few, we band of sisters, don't
>>have to put up with men NEARLY so much as they do, so their man-hatred
>>must even exceed OURS!"  Only to someone absolutely warped with hatred
>>of men would this seem "logical," which is why I don't doubt it's a
>>very common theme in certain feminist circles.
>
>	Nonsense.
>
>	It's just that a woman with a female SO doesn't have to deal
>with any man as intimately as a woman with a male SO does.

Which statement STILL contains the implication, "het women spend more
time around men than we do, THEREFORE they must hate them even more
than us!" In other words, that being around men leads to hating them
(an assumption which DOES underly much of contemporary feminism).
It is utterly UNTHINKABLE that "het women, spending more time around
men, will become rather fond of them"?

>	As a parting note, I think it significant that gay men don't
>get accused of misogyny very much -- the big objection to men being
>gay is apparently that gay men are not "real" men, and not that they
>supposedly hate women. I think that the best disproof of that thesis
>might come if one screams it in a gay bar; it would probably come in
>the form of a punch in the nose. :-):-)

I doubt that gay men WOULD be accused of "misogny" much, they
having already done to themselves what feminists hope to do
to the rest of us! :)

Two comments on your last sentence: First, I have spent my share of time
hanging around "het bars" (if that's a meaningful term?), and I've yet
to her ANYONE scream, "I hate women!", or anything even remotely like
that. Second: I thought that gay men were supposed to promote  
nonviolent behavior?

-- 
  
        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
From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Subject: AA-related ramblings
Date: 09 Jan 93 08:54:00 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: na

Tonight at dinner the topic turned at one point to equal rights. 
Demographics of the group was 4 white men & 1 white woman (me). 
Eventually one asked [rather confrontationally] "ever have a
job go to someone less qualified because you didn't fit a quota?"
I waited a beat, then asked, "ever have a job go to someone
less qualified because they said they needed a MAN for the job?"

I am against the concept and practice of affirmative action (AA)
in general and in most particular cases I've seen in practice.
(Partly because of this, I find it frustrating that often the
concepts of equal opportunity/equal rights are confused with AA.
AA sucks big time, at best it's a well-intentioned wrong.) But
tonight, I actually had hope.

At that table tonight, 3 people had been denied a job or entrance
to a particular major due to gender and/or racial discrimination. 2
of the three had been discriminated against because of AA. It was
interesting hearing things like "the only time being male has
counted against me was" or "the only time I've wished I weren't
white was".

AA is at least teaching segments of the society that had otherwise
never experienced discrimination based on gender what it's like. 
Sauce for the gander, as it were.

Think maybe NOW we can all agree that it's wrong?

-jen
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
From: levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine)
Subject: Re: Do you believe in what you want me to believe?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 22:57:24 GMT

gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:

>#I don't want to help a system which is discriminatory, and 
>#passive resistance seems to me appropriate.  IMO if everybody
>#will refuse to fill up AA forms, the AA system will collapse.

>In article <C0nDBu.4p2@news.cso.uiuc.edu> 
>levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:

>>Once again: How would my gender be obvious from the forms, in
>>a way that's not obvious from my name?

>If you are so sure that the affirmative action forms give
>you no advantage then why do you fill them up?  

Just because I would usually fill out all forms I was given.

Now, I'm asking you. Do you think filling out these forms,
and indicating I'm a woman on the form, will give me
any affirmative action advantage I won't get by filling
out the other forms?

Lenore Levine
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:6842 soc.men:22197 soc.women:22171
From: starbuck@galaxy.ucr.edu (starbuck)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Date: 5 Jan 93 19:00:41 GMT
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: University of California, Riverside

In article <michael.726194001@glia> michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael) writes:

-I'm sure that most feminists are going to spend their time trying to obtain
-the rights they deserve.  I agree that women should be included in the draft.

And don't forget about the rights that they don't deserve and any thing they
can take or get for free.  Michael, feminism is a politial movement and as
such will willingly  hurt others to get their way.  Period.  That is way of 
politics.  

-But a male only draft is an unfairness directed at men.  And if you as a man
-don't like it, get off your a** and do something about it.



  Do you really
-expect Diane Feinstein or anyone else to fight your battles for you?
-    Michael Stanley (michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu)

I expect that Diane Feinstein will represent the people of the state
of California.  That is her obligation and her duty.  She was elected
to represent the state NOT feminism.  Period.  Should she fail to
do so she will find herself unemployed.  I believe she went for the
short term so she can run for gov in 94.  I think she would like
to be president someday.  As unlikely as that may be any hope
that she may have to obtain such a position will be determined on
how well she represents the "PEOPLE" of California.  

starbuck 
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Subject: Re: Are special programs sexist/racist?  
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 03:08:10 GMT

In article <16B4CCB72.ALI00BAW@UNCCVM.UNCC.EDU> ALI00BAW@UNCCVM.UNCC.EDU writes:
> 
>There are about 100 (last time I looked) women's colleges left.  There are
>seven men's.  (Wabash, Renssaler,St. Johns/Minnesota, VMI, Hampton-Sydney,
>the Citadel, and Morehouse.)

Really, did good ol' Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology (Fighting
Engineers, Hit 'em with your briefcases, boys!!!!, Pocket-protectors,
pocket-protectors, Ra!! Ra!! Ra!!) go co-ed recently?  Last I heard (I
was there about a year ago), it was still all-male, but under a lot of
pressure to change.  Seems women were crying that they didn't have
access to one of the best engineering undergraduate schools in the
world.

Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM 
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Boycotts (was Re: Why are many low-income women fat?)
Date: 10 Jan 93 05:28:26 GMT
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: The Immoral Minority

In article <C0C9xx.M9y@news.cso.uiuc.edu> 
levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
>gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:

#What have been the major changes in your definition of "good"?

>Just a few examples: Ethical decisions have to be made about new
>birth technologies, such as surrogate motherhood, and new 
>communications technologies, such as the net. And these decisions
>may certainly change, as the technology evolves.

All of that is true, but what have been the major changes 
in your definition of "good"?

#My impression is that the young companies are where the job is really done.
#The old companies have too many "yes-men" that can't understand a
#changing world.  The government is of course one of the oldest
#companies around...

>Quite reasonable. However, one of the most effective, competent and ethical
>institutions I've ever had contact with was the San Jose State University
>Mathematics/Computer Science Department.

>A pity that when they cut the budget in California (due in part to a little
>hissy between those giants of competence, Pete Wilson and Willie Brown) the
>state universities were one of the institutions most severely affected.

What did you try to show?

(I agree that sometimes the government does some good, but on average 
it tends to be *over* priced.)  

>Lenore Levine

Hillel                                                gazit@cs.duke.edu

"There's never time to do it right, but there's always time to do it over."
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: Feminism's Lesbian Leaders (was: Why are there only men on)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 22:48:15 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.214042.26285@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>
>And on the subject of feminism, lesbianism, and man-hating, some
>feminists claim that it is heterosexual women who are the biggest
>man-haters of all, because who are the ones who have to live with men?

I don't doubt for a moment that many feminists do indeed claim this,
because it's absolutely zany. Implicit in the assertion is: "Man-hatred
is caused by having to spend time in the company of men, because men
are absolute shits . Hence, het women *must* hate them, from spending so
much time in that vile company. At least those of us who are *uncompromising*
feminists, we Lesbians, we few, we happy few, we band of sisters, don't
have to put up with men NEARLY so much as they do, so their man-hatred
must even exceed OURS!"  Only to someone absolutely warped with hatred
of men would this seem "logical," which is why I don't doubt it's a
very common theme in certain feminist circles.

>	There is a difference between:
>
>	Having a sexual preference for the same sex
>
>	and
>
>	Hating members of the opposite sex

Logically, yes, that's certainly possible. But whether it is generally
true is a separate question. Perusing various lesbian literature, it
does NOT seem to support Loren's suggestion that their view is "Yes,
men are OK, I guess, nothing against them, I'd just prefer a woman."
It's more like "Die, Vile Exploiting patriarchal scum!"

>
>	And Robert Sheaffer, why are you so _sensitive_ about this

Me, sensitive about *this*? Gosh, I've been giving feminsts a hard time
about a *lot* of various absurdities. Their "Lesbian Leadership"
is only one of many issues. On the contrary, it seem
that *you're* the one who is so incredibly sensitive to issues
involving motss.

-- 
  
        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)
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Choosing Dangerous Relationships (was: How to Protect Women)
Date: 5 Jan 93 20:43:07 GMT
	<1992Dec31.223942.7940@netcom.com> <C06rFH.FFz@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
	<1993Jan4.190655.28324@netcom.com> <C0E7MH.A1A@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu's message of Tue, 5 Jan 1993 18:06:14 GMT

In article <C0E7MH.A1A@news.cso.uiuc.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
[In response to Robert Sheaffer]
> Or is it that you can't tell who's interested in you, in any way?
> Or do you just feel that any man would be glad to get sexual
> advances from any woman?

Of course not, Lenore!  That should be "any woman except lesbians and
feminists (which are the same thing, anyway)."  *grin*

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.women
From: levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine)
Subject: Re: Feminism is a RELIGION! (eureka!)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 23:04:11 GMT

About inborn differences between men and women.

I suspect that there *are* some differences statistically. However,
I've noticed that most character traits and distributions of
abilities are found in significant numbers in both men
and women, even if the proportions differ.

For example, you mentioned spatial perception as a "masculine"
trait. However, I was just (email) talking to a woman who has this
trait much more than most people (and uses it with success
in her professional life).

I also note that in my family, among four full brothers and
sisters (no parthenogenesis, no milkman) the biggest character
dichotomy is between the left and right handers; not between
my brother and the three sisters. 

Now, my beautiful niece is extremely tall and is probably going
to be close to six feet when she grows up. Would you tell
her that her height makes her unfeminine? Would you cut off
her legs to make her shorter?

Then why impose statistical observations of character, on
a woman (like the one I mentioned) on whom they don't fit?

Lenore Levine
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell)
Subject: Re: Feminism's Lesbian Leaders
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 20:15:18 GMT

In article <C0JsLB.IuG@news.cso.uiuc.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
>sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell) writes:
>
>>	I have heard this "het women hate men more etc" comment about
>>	3 times before.  Each time was from a lesbian who did hate men.
>>	These two women I know ( unfortunately ) were pretty outnumbered
>>	by the lesbians I know who dont have a problem with men, and with
>>	the men/women I know who love the opposite sex despite some general
>>	traits they dont like.  Take this ancedotal point for what it is
>>	worth.
>
>>	In saying het women have more reason to hate men because they are
>>	around them more, does implicitly assume there are odious traits
>>	in men in general to be exposed to or not exposed to. 
>
>...Not necessarily. I am a het woman, I don't hate men; however, I've
>known a few that did. And mostly these were women who had spent a
>good part of their lives assuming an artificial personality with
>men, for economic reasons.
>
>I think that if I had had to be a courtesan with women I would have
>ended up hating women; with men, hating men; and with green space
>aliens, hating them the most! There's nothing like faking orgasm (or
>even friendship) to make you hate the person you're doing it for!
>
>>SFJR
>
>Lenore Levine

	I think you have a good point, but I'll argue that the type of
	woman you just described would claim that a need for dominance,
	economic or otherwise is a trait most men possess, so she hates
	men and lesbians who dont go this route aren't dominated by their
	partners hence dont hate men.

Steve R

Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Subject: Re: Choosing Dangerous Relationships (was: How to Protect Women)
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 21:03:48 GMT

In article <jay.32.726337989@UUSERV.CC.UTAH.EDU> jay@UUSERV.CC.UTAH.EDU (Jay Deuel) writes:
>>> Or is it that you can't tell who's interested in you, in any way?
>>> Or do you just feel that any man would be glad to get sexual
>>> advances from any woman?
>>
>>Of course not, Lenore!  That should be "any woman except lesbians and
>>feminists (which are the same thing, anyway)."  *grin*
>>
>Wrong Muffy, I think any man would appriciate sexual advances from any woman 
>who would be willing to follow through (no teasing please)!  ;-)
I disagree.  For every man there must be *some* woman he wouldn't want to bed
with.


-- 
-- 
--
-- "TANSTAAFL"     Rich lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Why I am Not An Egalitarian
Date: 6 Jan 93 13:00:19 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

| >>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
| >>>And your use of the word "intuition" makes me nervous. It's a female,
| >>>non-objective thing.

twain@milton.u.washington.edu (Barbara Hlavin) writes:
| >Intuition is not "a female thing." 

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
| I think we have a definition problem here.
| 
| In general, I agree.
| 
| intuition n.  1) a- The faculty of knowing as if by instinct, without
|   conscious reasoning. b- A perceprion based upon this faculty. 2)
|   Sharp insight.
| 
| But then there is a thing known as `feminine intuition'. How this
| differs from normal intuition is not clear, but the usage of the term
| indicates that it is a faculty possessed only by women.
| 
| Can a women intuit without it being a result of `feminine intuition'?
| You tell me.  ...

I've seldom heard the term "feminine intuition" used by
a woman.  Rather, it was popular when I was growing up, in
the 1950s, because women were supposed to be incapable of
reason, and there had to be some explanation of how they
managed to get about in the world and do things.
 
In other words, it's part of a stereotype.  Some
neuropsychologists have suggested that women may, in 
general, possess better intuitive powers than men, because
of small physiological differences, but this is also true
of left-handed versus right-handed people and is all very
speculative.  "Intuition" may actually represent a large
collection of different mental processes.
-- 

 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: alt.feminism