HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: peters@cs.city.ac.uk (Peter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Value of Womens' Lives (was: _Backlash_)
Date: 28 Sep 92 11:27:56 GMT
Organization: City University

In <1992Sep26.055229.27451@msc.cornell.edu> hillyard@msc.cornell.edu writes:

>From article <1992Sep25.001508.3182@s1.gov>, by lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich):
>> In article <oneil.717307365@cwis> oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil) writes:
>>>lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>>>
>>>>In article <yv8n__g.sheaffer@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>> 
>> @ >This must explain why, in lifeboat situations, it's always "women and
>> @ >children first."
>> 
>> @ 	A traditional stereotype, but one happily out of date in many
>> @ cases. None of the airplane evacuation instructions I've ever seen
>> @ include this.

>The big difference, of course, is that when a big ship goes down you may
>have a few hours to decide who gets to go in the boat.  When a plane crashes
>if you're not out in seconds you're probably dead.

>A 'lifeboat situation' would be where no strategy would let any more people
>live, but someone has to die.

>> 
>>>Don't worry: he's grasping desperately to hang on to his argument
>>>here.  When was the last time he was in a lifeboat situation?
>> 
>> 	Interesting question. What's the rule nowadays for (say)
>> cruise ships? I presume they have enough lifeboat space for everybody.
>> 
>> 	I don't recall every seeing any such thing in evacuation
>> instructions for BART [Bay Area Rapid Transit] trains and the various
>> Bay Area ferries. For the ferries, it's simply put on life vests;
>> there is supposed to be one for everybody. For BART, there are some

>Its not a 'lifeboat situation' if there is enough for everybody.

>> nontrivial features: the floor level is 3 or 4 feet above the track
>> level (watch your step!!!), the trains are powered by a 1000 V
>> electrified third rail (don't touch it!!!), and much of the route is
>> either elevated or underground.
>> 
>> 	For putting on oxygen masks, all the airliner instructions
>> I've ever seen state to put one on a little kid before putting on one
>> for oneself. This would seem to be a case of "weakest first", though
>> there is no "women and children first" anywhere.
>> 
>> 	So "women and children first" would seem to be a dead letter
>> for evacuating crippled vehicles nowadays.

>Because in an evacuation letting women and children first would likely
>slow the overall evacuation down, putting more lives at risk.


>Keeping with the header.

>Why is it that when a disaster occurs the news usually reports it something
>like this?  'And ten were killed by the bomb, including two women and a 
>ten month old baby.'  Now its obvious that mentioning the baby is to heighten
>the sense of tragedy.  What do you think the reason is for mentioning the
>women separately?

Quite simple.
Because women and babies are very rarely the ones who do stupid things like
plant bombs. Similarly, in wartime situations, the press often report that
10 were killed by the bomb, including 3 civilians - civilians are presumably
not making war.

Peter Smith

>SEH
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge)
Subject: Re: Sexy clothing encourage rape?
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 92 03:20:41 GMT

In article <1ai1l5INN604@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>Besides, if our society really believed that sexy clothing *caused*
>rape, wouldn't one expect rape victims to be able to turn around and 
>sue clothing stores for selling and advertising those sexy clothes
>in the first place?
>
	Well, given the way things are going (e.g. attempts to pass a 
"Pornography Victims Compensation Act") I wouldn't be the least bit
surprised.  >:-)>
	But seriously:  of course the "sexy clothes" defense if hooey.  You
might as well claim that a male robbery victim was "asking for it" by wearing
a Rolex.
>						--  Michal
The_Doge
ObQuot:  "The principle of procrastinated rape is said to be the ruling one
	  in all the great best-sellers."
			-- V.S. Pritchett, in "Clarissa" (1946)


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (Rini Clarkberg)
Subject: Re: Playboy/Men/Feminists
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 20:09:19 GMT

In article <6608@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> tjw+@pitt.edu writes:

>I have always suspected that the written word in Playboy was far more
>"dangerous" than those "EVIL" pictures.  

I never had a problem with the pictures, but the text is often
irritating, IMO.  Especially the centerfolds' self-descriptions...
Blech....  "I'm a space cadet and I like wine and candlelight..."
Whoever finds *that* exciting... I dunno.  I always find it a little
depressing.... :(

rini
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Violent Di Batters Charles
Date: 3 Oct 1992 18:17:44 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu
Keywords: Poor Little Princess!

dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber) writes:

>I remember getting very frustrated in grade school
>and junior high when my parents, teachers, the counselor, etc all kept telling
>me that "It takes two to fight", and "If you just ignore him, he'll leave you
>alone after a while"....  The one time I got angry enough
>to fight back, I got suspended for a day, but funny thing: he never bothered me
>again.  Mind you, I'm not advocating getting into fights with strangers in a
>bar where weapons might be involved...

Unfortunately, things in our society have degenerated to the point 
that "weapons might be involved" in schoolyard brawls among children...

							--  Michal
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.cb
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Subject: Re: Violent Di Batters Charles
Keywords: Poor Little Princess!
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 00:22:23 GMT

>And while it is true that the Royal Family isn't going to sue, plenty of
>other people might, hence they've become reasonably careful at validating
>statements. Of course, since none of US was in the Palace to witness
>any Royal Battles, we invariably will have to rely on someone else's 
>account.

If it's in the NE, it don't matter if it's some unknown lumberjack or Lady
Foo-Foo, it's STILL not a reliable source on what really happened.
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Subject: Re: Sexy Clothing, Sexy Pictures, and Rape.
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 17:47:30 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.163415.4989@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
>Michal Leah Peri writes:
>
>> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>> >This whole discussion seems silly to me.  Any clothing can be sexy to
>> >someone.  For example, those spandex shorts bikers wear.  Now, I
>> >happen to find them incredibly sexy, and tend to ogle bikers at
>> >traffic lights.  Should a biker (wearing shorts that are for biking)
>> >be required to worry about my libido as s/he is biking?
>> 
>> Besides, the whole concept of "I couldn't help myself, she was wearing 
>> tight clothes" is pretty demeaning to *men*.  Are they seriously trying
>> to gain sympathy from claiming to be all id and have no control over
>> their own penises?
>
>It seems to work for the anti-pornography crusade, who seems to feel that
>men can't control themselves when they see sexy pictures.  [Not that I think
>they're right either.]  But there is an interesting difference in how the
>two (sexy pictures/sexy clothes) are treated nowdays.  One doesn't see much
>of the following line of argument:
>
>/* set parody on */
>
>Banning sexy clothes may not have that great an impact on rape, but- if
>banning sexy clothes stops even *one* rape, isn't it worth it?

/* set tasteless joke on */

[Thoughtful look]
Nah.  I *like* those sexy clothes.  :-)

/* set tasteless joke off */

Sorry.
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: swartz@fraser.sfu.ca (Norman Swartz)
Subject: Info wanted: Grad. Programs in Feminism
Keywords: postgraduate, philosophy
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 02:26:41 GMT

To aid in advising students, I am trying to put together a small
database about post graduate programs in Philosophy and Women's
Studies (or Feminist Philosophy).  I would be pleased to have you
send me directly (at one of the email addresses below)
information you might have about such MA and PhD programs at
universities in Canada and the United States.  Which universities
have joint programs in philosophy and women's studies (or
feminist philosophy)?; which have programs in philosophy that
allow for a substantial component of (or concentration in)
women's studies (or feminist philosophy)?

Please understand that I am asking for information about the
existence of such programs, their location, their size, etc.  I
am NOT soliciting opinions about the quality of these programs.

Many thanks.
==========================================================================
Professor Norman Swartz   |  e-mail (via Internet): norman_swartz@sfu.ca
Department of Philosophy  |  e-mail (via Bitnet):   swartz@sfuvax
Simon Fraser University   |
Burnaby, B.C.             |  fax:                           (604)-291-4455
Canada V5A 1S6            |
==========================================================================
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: _Backlash_ ( Sort of )
Date: 29 Sep 92 17:11:21 GMT
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences

In article <6407@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood) writes:
>In article <oneil.717530535@cwis>, oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil) writes:
>
>> She was still able to make her own decision
>> and did so quite clearly when she said she didn't want the cesarean to 
>> take place.  Her family was still able to make the decision and they said
>> no as well.  The decision was made with NO consideration for her life --
>> only in consideration of the fetus inside of her.  
>
>Did she or her family call the police?  What these "doctors" did to her was
>(at a minumum) assult.  When you enter the hospital, you do not give up your
>civil or constitutional rights.  Doctors can not decide that you need this
>or that and legally act against your will.
>
>The description you give does sound like the reasoning of the "new" right
>(many of whom are members of the current Republican party of the United
>States).  This woman sounds like a victim of their reasoning.

Please re-read the original quote of what was done.  It does *not* indicate
that the woman made her wishes known.  In fact, it states that she was not
consulted.  I seriously doubt this was from negligence; much more probable was
that she was unconcious.
In what was said and NOT said, the original text was slanted, but I gave a
reasonable, if not probable, sequence of events in another post in this thread.

>They have this idea that the life of a child is worth more than the life
>of an adult.  They never take into consideration that the adult may be
>responsible for many more children at home, for instance.  This view also
>seems to held by the Catholic church.  This is one of the many areas where
>the Jews differ in reasoning from the Catholics, for the Jews consider the
>life of the adult to be more important than the child.

<deity> knows it's been a long time since I've had anything to do with the
Catholic church, but I seem to recall that my teachers (who may well have been
heretical for all I know) said it was a decision the Church wasn't prepared to
make a blanket statement about.

You could easily have more current info than I;  My memory could easily be way
off; etc, but are you *sure* this is dogma?  I know it's not considered
"infallible" (sp?) since that's only happened twice in the history of the
church, [Repeat disclaimers about my info.] so who exactly said this?

While we're at it, how certain are you of the Jewish doctrine?  I confess total
ignorance to Jewish law in this (and most) areas.
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
From: jrmo@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (joseph.r.moore)
Subject: Wimps (was Re: Violent Di Batters Charles
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 17:36:32 GMT

In article <keulen.718008610@possum> keulen@possum.csu.murdoch.edu.au (Mike van Keulen) writes:
>Hang on a minute ... what's wrong with walking away from a fight ... if I see a
>fight coming which could involve me, I would much rather walk away, avoiding
>the confrontation and defusing the situation.  Isn't that a much better
>strategy?  Surely the rough and tumble "real-man"-hood days aren't still
>around?
>
A wimp is someone who walks away from a fight because of cowardice.  Some
people are so afraid of confrontation, they will do anything to avoid it.
Whether the confrontation is returning defective merchandise or speaking 
up when someone steps in front of you in line.  Another way to avoid
confrontation is to become extremely volatile and dangerous so that no
sound person will argue with you.  Walking away from a fight is not
necessarily the best strategy, strength is not always wrong.  The problem
with walking away because of cowardice is that you will know that you are
a coward, and you will build resentments (think of all the husbands who
always give in to their wives or vice versa, just to avoid fighting.)  
Walking away by choice, not because you are afraid, builds character; 
because deep down you know you are making the right decision and you've 
faced your fears.  

Only you can determine if you are walking away by choice or because of
irrational fear.

Joe Moore

ps. for the forthcoming flamers just consider that fear of confrontation
    is a manifestation of a fear of intimacy, (sharing your own values by
    assertiveness.)  And that's probably because of feelings of inadequacy
    such that a person does not feel his values will be accepted, tolerated,
    or worthwhile.  It is not an indictment of the author or even an
    accusation, just a few related thoughts.  If you want me to read or
    reply to your response, use e-mail.
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Observations from male studentnt
Date: 2 Oct 92 19:40:55 GMT
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences

In article <1992Oct1.003625.16186@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>know this, and that you are raped while wearing such clothing, do you
>>think that the rapist should get a lighter sentence, since you are
>
>Again, there are assumptions in your question that prevent me from
>answering it. Please rephrase the question (and the scenario). 
>
>
>-- 
>Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
>dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov       dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov         ...usc!elroy!dxh

Dave, as is clear from Muffy's, somebody's, and now this post:  There are
several people who don't know what assumptions are preventing you from
answering.  Please elaborate.

The only one I can come up with (and I'm seriously trying here) is that such
clothing is now out of context and you may want it explicitly stated what
clothing is being discussed.

I (me personally, not Muffy, nor anyone else) would be happy to argue that a
person should be able to wear any clothing (or none), act as coyly as they
wish, and *STILL* not have any responsibility whatsoever for being raped.

While it's true that one must be reasonably aware and behave defensively, that
is a bug of our society, not a feature.

Please reconsider your stance that someone who is raped should be considered
partially responsible.  The rapists (and the society that releases them to rape
again) are responsible.  Never the victim.
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: Violent Di Batters Charles
Keywords: Poor Little Princess!
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 18:04:25 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.142923.155@ads.com> charleen@ADS.COM (Charleen Bunjiovianna) writes:
>
>From _The Skeptical Inquirer_ to the _National Enquirer_...really, Robert!

Well, E(I)nquiring Minds want to know many different things! 
SI's coverage of scandals in the Royal Family has been rather deficient.
>
>I guess I'll keep my SI subscription for now, though; Martin Gardner's
>columns are still worth reading.

Hopefully, mine still is, too?

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

       "Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on this planet.
        Then all things are at risk. It is as when a conflagration has
        broken out in a great city, and no man knows what is safe, or
        where it will end."
                               - Emerson: Essay, "Circles"
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: statistics and questions
Date: 29 Sep 92 20:43:56 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
| >   I've seen it repeatedly said that women who have put in
| >   the same time get the same money and the same promotions;
| >   may do a little bit better, in fact.  "Time" refers to
| >   both hours per day and years of employment.  

zen@death.corp.sun.com (d):
|   References, please?  I'd very much like to see proof of this; there
| are many things that I have seen repeatedly that aren't true :-)  This
| would give me more hope if it were so (pardon my doubt... *smile*)

Bronis gave us the figures; my thanks, I didn't have any,
but I had seen them around.

"Hope" is not my interpretation of the figures.  Bearing and
raising children is one of the few constructive things
people do.  Consequently, like many other necessary tasks,
like raising food, making clothing, and cleaning up, it
appears to be despised and punished.  What is rewarded is
the speed with which one can turn the Earth into industrial
waste, or the efficiency with which one can hoodwink others 
into believing one is doing so.  The condition of the world
reflects our preferences; and for women to puruse the same
ends as men have for the last several centuries does not
seem to me to be a hopeful sign.
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Observations from male studentnt
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 06:06:49 GMT

In article <garry-240992111202@nulla-nulla.rice.edu> garry@rice.edu (Garry C. King) writes:
>In article <1992Sep24.081552.17966@leland.Stanford.EDU>,
>farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) wrote:
>Surely there are some data on sexual harassment ?  Otherwise, we're just
>going to argue on the basis of our (limited) experience.  Neither of us can
>know enough people to strongly support our stances.

Well, you want to do the research for this?  I know I don't and can't
right now, so we'll just have to talk on the basis of our limited
experience unless you'll willing to do this.

>> Ah, I see.  I'll be more explicit then and say that I don't think
>> female sexuality is valued in our culture.  It's a huge distance
>> between being a sex object (for hetero men) and celebrating female
>> sexuality.
>> I do see some commercials and ads that celebrate a certain type of
>> male beauty, the Soloflex ads for example.  I don't see that as
>> valuing or celebrating male sexuality, though, since it's just tits
>> and ass, the male version.
>
>I think that you choose to see only the Western objectification and
>commodification of female sexuality without appreciating that the
>objectification couldn't work without the underlying concept having
>substantial psychological power.  Although you might deny it, the
>advertisements you object to demonstrate that valuation strongly. But what
>do you mean by "just" tits and ass ?

I'm saying that sexuality is much more than body parts.  If you say
that our culture values female body parts being used to sell films,
CDs, beer, cars, etc., I'll agree to that.
From: nadel@attatash.aero.org (Miriam Nadel)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: _Backlash_ ( Sort of )
Date: 2 Oct 92 22:51:30 GMT
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization

In article <1992Sep29.164211.26113@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>In article <oneil.717530535@cwis> oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil) writes:
>>She was still able to make her own decision
>>and did so quite clearly when she said she didn't want the cesarean to 
>>take place.  Her family was stilla ble to make the decision and they said
>>no as well.  The decision was made with NO consideration for her life --
>>only in consideration of the fetus inside of her.  So, yes, it was because
>>she was a woman.  
>
>Excuse me.  In the statement I read, it was not stated that the woman
>"rejected" the cesarean; rather it says it was done without her permission.
>It could well have been the case that the woman was unconcious and incapable
>of making the decision.  It *could* even be that the family was not there and
>there was no time to contact them because the decision had to be made *NOW*.
>It *might* not even have been bad medical treatment as much as a tragic outcome
>to a no-win decision.

Faludi's account of the Angela Carder case matches the news stories from the
time quite well.  Carder was unconscious part of the time but during the
period when she was conscious, she indicated that she did not want the
Caesarean.  The judge at the appeal dismissed this because she was under
medication and he considered her not to be lucid.  However, her husband
explicitly refused the surgery.  Furthermore, her own physicians stated that
they thought the surgery ill-advised.  (As I recall, a hospital administrator
brought the suit to force the doctors to perform the surgery.)  In addition,
the fetus was 24 weeks, which is marginally viable.  There was no good
medical reason for the haste.  As far as I'm concerned, Judge Earl Smith
murdered Angela Carder.

Miriam Nadel
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:1665 soc.men:16961 alt.sex:30925
From: biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel)
Subject: Re: "Alt.feminism - why it should be shut down. A sample post!"
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 15:18:35 GMT

mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (Rini Clarkberg) writes:

>Censorship also leaves a bad taste in my mouth -- I'm totally against it in
>any shape or form.  Yet I firmly believe that people censor things in an 
>effort to protect others. 

Of course they do. Practically every evil perpetrated on this planet by
groups of people is done in the firm conviction that it is of general
benefit, and that even though it may cause some pain to some people. the
general good is served by it. Thus censors expose themselves to pornography
and offensive language to protect others from their corrupting influence,
the Inquisition tortures heretics for their own good, the good Nazi kills
Jews for the ethnic purity of the race. Every one of these people has a 
deep-in-the-gut conviction that what they do is ultimately noble and selfless,
even though it may cause some suffering to some people.

Evil people rarely think of themselves as evil, usually they're convinced
they're martyrs to the cause.

So what else is new?

Regards,
       H. Biesel