HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Subject: Re: Boycotts (was Re: Why are many low-income women fat?)
Date: 28 Dec 92 07:00:09 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <BzqHn9.9CK@news.cso.uiuc.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
>rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>>	That, one.  Two, I would suggest that you consider whether
>>	these jobs are jobs that an obese individual can properly fill,
>>	that is, look at the activity the job involves (physical
>>	activity and safety, especially). 
>
>Systems analyst? (A specific example related to me on the net.) 
>Most of these jobs are highly technical positions...

Ah, yes.  I was (according to height/weight tables and body 
fat measurements) morbidly obese when I applied at microsoft -
5'9" tall, 250 pounds, wearing size 24-28 clothing (depending on
cut and manufacturer).

I could also meet and maintain my target heart rate (aerobic) by walking
up and down a three-story staircase at school for 30 minutes or by briskly
wandering up and around Queen Anne Hill in Seattle (where my university
is located). I took long routes between classes for extra walking and
also worked out with weights regularily. I also had a 3.88 average on
a 4.0 scale in my major (computer science.)

Then I started working at microsoft and got out of the habit of 
exercising. Wasn't walking up & down hills between classes either. 
Was spending 40-50-60+ hours in my chair in front of my computer, tho.

Now I can meet my target heart rate by walking on a flat surface (note
I didn't say walking briskly!!) and wear size 28-32 (depending on cut
and manufacturer).

I started in product support, and now I'm a software tester (quality 
control). I've done product training both inside and outside of
microsoft and been loaned to other groups (such as when I was
loaned to a doc team to write a technical manual). And regardless 
of my relative size or state of physical fitness, I've always been
given high ratings for performance.

> Third, take a look at the
>>	work areas that the companies _have right now_ (I think it's
>>	rediculous to make them rebuild) and make sure that those 
>>	(and not bigotry) aren't the underlying reason.
>
>How does someone my size need a special work area?

At the moment I have 60" hips - and the chairs we have here fit me
fine....once I adjust them for my height.  Seriously, the ONLY
trouble my size has caused in doing my JOB is that I have to get
them to order larger t-shirts (can't ship a product without a t-shirt :)

>I think you are not cynical enough. 

Probably not.

>I am not sure whether the boycott I described would work. But I know
>I would not knowingly buy products from a company that refused to hire
>people my size.

If they refused to hire people my size for the kind of white-collar
desk jobs that I've done at microsoft...me too.

>Lenore Levine

-jen
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women,soc.men
From: levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine)
Subject: Re: Sophie Germain - Gender Differences
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 15:56:47 GMT

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:

>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 not agree with this indicator; and am quite willing to express my
disagreement about it in public.

>>                                     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. 

There is a general consensus about this last sentence, among research
mathematicians.

(I am curious as to your mathematical background.)

>Publish or perish, I always thought it was a bad idea, but it is a
>reality.

Not every current "reality" is worth keeping, or will be kept.
The only constant is change.

>>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.


The only reason I am in favor of programs like the Mills College
program, is because in the current culture, *many* women have obstacles
to overcome in entering mathematics. If this were not the case, I
would not be in favor of such a program. 

You have a point, though, that these programs should be geared more
towards helping *individuals* who have a history of cultural obstacles,
not members of specific *groups*.

>Rich

>payner@netcom.com

Lenore Levine
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women,soc.men
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Date: 22 Dec 92 22:03:02
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<MUFFY.92Dec21154021@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<1992Dec22.171727.1@d0gslb.fnal.gov>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: holzman@d0gslb.fnal.gov's message of Tue, 22 Dec 1992 23:17:27 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.171727.1@d0gslb.fnal.gov> holzman@d0gslb.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman) writes:
>In article <MUFFY.92Dec21154021@remarque.berkeley.edu>, 
>muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>> No, the issue is that every time someone talks about the violence that
>> is practiced against women, some people here start shouting about the
>> violence that happens to men.  Not only do they not seem to want us to
>> work on the problem *we* are concerned about, but they further want us
>> to work on *their* problems.  

>Who is "we", Muffy?

"We" is those of us who choose to work on that problem.  Notably
feminists. 

>Why is it that every time someone brings up violence against men, here or
>elsewhere, some feminists start shouting about violence against women, and how
>dare we focus on men's problems?

Actually, the original discussion was about violence against women.  I
understand why you wish to twist the facts in this way, but I don't see
any point in answering it further.

>Personally, I think I have enough time to deal with both.  If you can only deal
>with one, don't be surprised if a bunch of people decide that they only have
>time for their problem and to hell with you and yours.  This does not seem an
>effective tactic.

Well, it would be quite fine with me if you would go to hell.  You
certainly aren't making the world any better by trying to STOP feminists
from doing anything about violence against women.  I guess if you don't
have to work to support yourself and your family, you have time to work
on *ALL* problems (what *have* you done about violence against women
lately, by the way?), but some of us don't have that luxury.

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                      | ~Can you tell me how much bleeding/it
muffy@mica.berkeley.edu            |  takes to fill a word with meaning and/
"amorous inclinations"? Aha! I'm   |  how much how much death it takes/to give
not "not straight," I'm *inclined*.|  a slogan breath?~ - Bruce Cockburn
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Excessive context deletion.
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 04:40:24 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.040142.20381@zooid.guild.org> goid@zooid.guild.org (Will Steeves) writes:
>peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes...
>>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>Would it be equally OK to for man to make such decisions for women?
>
>>What equivalent decisions would that be?
>
>Ah, for instance - The woman doesn't want to raise the child, but the man
>does.  Is she forced to support a child whom she doesn't want?

You missed the point, my response was context free in exactly the same
way as the post it was in response too. Your response is inappropriate as
it adds context, when excessive context deletion was the new topic.
 
>---
>Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
>ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
>(416) 322-7876
>
>"Gravity: It's more than just a fragrance.  It's the LAW!"
>   - Will Steeves, President, GOiDS "R" We, Inc.
>
> * SLMR 2.1a * Be Alert, we need all the lerts we can get.


Rich

payner@nertcom.com



Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Subject: Re: Why are many low-income women fat? (was Re: Separate but Equal?)
Date: 28 Dec 92 07:28:14 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Dec23.161102.400@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <1992Dec23.082529.10340@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>>Are you not implying that fit is better than fat?
>
>I am saying that it is healthier to be fit. I cannot say what is better
>or worse for you, or anyone else. 

Why doesn't "healthier" == "better"?

>It is not my call anyway.
> 
>>Does it not follow from that that fat is not as good as fit?
>
>Good and bad are personal value judgements, draw your own. Personally,
>I'd rather be fit. 
>
>>And does it not follow from that that fat people aren't as good as
>>people who have made themselves fit?
>
>Again with the value judgements, draw your own, I have no interest in
>making value judgements for enyone else.

Please don't take this the wrong way, Rich...but do you *REALLY* not
make value judgements based on how fat someone appears to be, while
at the same time preaching being fat is a personal choice, and that
anyone who is fat can and should become fit???

Yes, I am really *THAT* surprised. 

-jen
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: Re: Language
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 16:21:22 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: mydog in exile

An illustration of something I was talking about awhile ago
-- evidence of a hostile cultural attitude toward sex, and
possibly a hostile individual attitude, as evidenced by the
use of terms referring to gentalia as derogatory.  To wit:

evahramian@mta.ca writes:
|             ... And no, I dont call women pussies,
| i call men that act like women, pussies.
|
| "I am lost in thought
|  as it is such
|  unfamiliar territory"

To thrash around the unfamiliar territory: why are men who
"act like women" bad?  What does "acting like a woman" mean?
And why is a slang term for the female genitals an insult?
(After all, one could as well use such a reference to mean
"voluptuous" or "creative" which is how I experience them.)

Or am I taking this wrong, and does evahramian admire men who
"act like women" and wish to compliment them?  It would not
seem so, for both male and female sexual organs were given as
insults immediately above.  Why?  These are not rhetorical
questions.  In some cultures, ikons of female and male
genitals are venerated as religious objects.   What are _we_
doing?
-- 

 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.dads-rights,soc.men,misc.legal
From: michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael)
Subject: Re: False allegations of abuse / Chesler's book...
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 17:06:15 GMT

In <1992Dec20.184026.8801@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:

>Can someone cite or even quote the passage in Chesler's
>book?  I'd like to read it.  My apologies if this was
>already done; if so, just send email?  Thanks.
>-- 

No, please cite it here where we can all read it.  Might lead to a
better discussion (except that I'll probably be out of town and
can't respond to it)...

    Michael Stanley (michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu)
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: Mysogynist Bullshit
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 02:58:55 GMT

muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:

[on using men as the medical model...]

>>Bullshit, it is just easier and simpler. No monthly changes to take into
>>account, and no pregnancies to complicate long term studies.

>So, what are you saying here, Rich?  That it is, in fact, true, that
>rather than studying women's bodies, scientists have simply generalized
>form men's bodies?  Do you think that that is adequate information to
>determine which is "suerpior"?
                     ^^^^^^^^

Wow, Muffy.  You've sent me to the latin dictionary on that one!

(Let's see... I've got "suer: one who initiates legal proceedings 
seeking damages" and  "pior: worse".)

Anyway, I think you are completely right.  There is no way to decide,
from simply studying men's bodies alone, which gender is the worse suer.  

;)

rini
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Freedom Of Choice For Men is *no more "un)family"* than Pro-Choicers!
Date: 25 Dec 92 01:35:23 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

goid@zooid.guild.org (Will Steeves) actually responded to
my complaints about men's choice.

gf:
| GF>I've come up with a general solution -- in fact, two of
| GF>them -- which would get unwilling fathers off the hook.
| GF>They are (1) to communize (or if you prefer, socialize)
| GF>child support; and (2) to use the method used by (I
| GF>believe) the Navahos, who allocate certain communal
| GF>resources to mothers with children (in the case of the
| GF>Navahos, arable land).

ws:
| These are, I would admit, fairly revolutionary ideas, and as such, I would
| not be quick to dismiss them out of hand, though you have dismissed much
| of what has been proposed by the Freedom Of Choice for Men advocates on
| the net.

What?  I said it was politically unrealistic in the 
current environment, and that it didn't take into
consideration wider issues.  Does anyone deny either
of these propositions?

gf:
| GF>I don't have the bandwidth to read this group as
| GF>thoroughly as I would like, but I have seen _no_
| GF>solutions offered by the, um, unfathers' movement.

ws:
| This is not fair at all, Gordon.  Should I refer to Pro-Women's Choice
| advocates as the (Un)Mother's movement?

Be my guest.

| GF>(Or by anyone else, actually; as I said, the question
| GF>doesn't seem to interest any of you.  At 53, I can
|    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

ws:
| Not all all... Just because we didn't come up with *your* ideas, does not
| mean that we do not have ideas of our own.  Do not judge us by *your* own
| standards, please.

What are they?  I'm breathless with anticipation.  This
is the first response to any of my articles in this thread
that suggests that anyone has any ideas at all about what
happens to the children in the new world proposed.  The
remainder have studiously ignored the question, unless I
missed something.

gf:
| GF>count on some of you to keep the economy going so I
| GF>can get my social security and dividend checks as I
| GF>hobble around twenty or thirty years hence; but for
| GF>_you_, there will evidently be no next generation.
| GF>Good luck!)

ws:
| Excuse me, Gordon, but I believe that you have always known that Pro-Women's
| Choice advocates are NOT against having children (not generally, at any
| rate), but are in favour of CHOOSING when to do so.  This is the same with
| the Freedom Of Choice for Men movement.  ...

As I pointed out in at least two previous articles, 
any middle-class type who had children under the world 
arrangement proposed by "men's choice", at least the 
Hillel Gazit version, would be crazy; they'd lose the 
rat race.

The effect of even _present_ mechanisms of support, or
rather, the lack of them, have apparently brought the 
birth-rate below the population replacement level.
-- 

 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:6439 alt.dads-rights:3083 soc.men:21693 misc.legal:21667
From: shomer@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.dads-rights,soc.men,misc.legal
Subject: Re: False allegations of abuse / Chesler's book...
Summary: Spock trial
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 13:27:59 PST
Reply-To: shomer@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us

In article <1992Dec20.171518.27212@leland.Stanford.EDU>, 
kpscarr@leland.Stanford.EDU (Karen Pelton Scarr) writes:
> 
> 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
>  
It was and is illegal to "aid, abet, or counsel" someone to break the 
draft and draft registration laws. 

Spock was charged with conspiracy to counsel, not with counseling.

As I understand the law (and I'm no lawyer), it's not in general
illegal to advocate disobedience to the law. However, there are laws
against advocating disobedience of particular laws in certain 
circumstances, e.g., inciting riots, encouraging men to refuse to 
register for the draft, and other acts that especially threaten the State.

-- 
_________________________________
Steve Homer  shomer@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us
From: michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael)
Subject: Re: Language
Organization: University of Washington
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 18:27:46 GMT

In <1992Dec20.232507.594@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca> evahramian@mta.ca writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.135617.5840@cs.cornell.edu>, jean@cs.cornell.edu (Jean M. Petrosino) writes:
>>
>>And what about derrogatory terms for both women and men (and their anatomies)? Here is my list (feel
>>free to add on):
>>
>>Women:						Men:
>>	bitch						dick
>>	cunt						jerk
>>	slut						dork
>>	whore						geek
>>	dog						pig
>>	hole						muscle-head
>>	snatch						asshole
>>	pussy
>>	prude
>>	dick-tease
>>	ice-queen
>>	
>>
>  Does it strike you that there are more terms for women
>>than for men?  Even if you can come up with an equal number of terms for men
>>and women - do you notice the difference in what the terms for women vs. the 
>>terms for men imply?  Terms for men imply they are not attractive primarily
>>because of their intellect (either a lack thereof, or having TOO much), or they
>>imply that men don't have a good personality.  Derrogatory terms for women 
>>primarily focus on sexuality (either a lack thereof, having TOO much, or simply
>>being an object for sex).  Does anyone else find this interesting?
>>
>>(this post is in no way meant to be flame bait or sarcastic--I would honestly
>> like to discuss this issue)
>>
>>-jean
>>

>Jean,

>I can understand that you are concerned about the foul words used to 
>describe both women and men.  But you admittedly stated that these were
>not due to a well researched effort.  You have obviously posted the message
>with a theme in mind...the treatment of women.

Oh no!  She had a theme in mind?  *gasp*

>                                                So you have probably
>avoided mentioning several words to describe men, navaho indians, blacks,
>pakistanis, west indian, liberals, and Armenians.

Oh no!  She wants to get specific about women?  In a newsgroup called
alt.feminism?  SHAME on her!  *astonished look*

>In the future, don't expect intelligent discussion when your statements
>show a definite lack of objectivity.

It was my understanding she invited discussion.  So if you don't feel
that there is a disparity in words used as she describes, the proper
response would have been to have talked about why you believe that.

>                                      And no, I dont call women pussies,
>i call men that act like women, pussies.

I'm glad you feel defensive enough to mention that.  However I might point
out that no one has accused you of saying such that I'm aware of.

In addition, calling men that act like women pussies is a remarkable
thing.  You've not only managed to try to insult men, but you've insulted
women at the same time.  I guess I'll have retract my previous paragraph
and accuse you after all. :)  And by the way.  Aside from the fact that
most men I know look very little like a pussy, I can't think of a thing
about that part of a female's anatomy that I find insulting.

    Michael Stanley (michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: The BEM Test
Date: 28 Dec 92 20:28:15 -0600
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: fnalno.fnal.gov

In article <BzzoAJ.Kwo@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore 
Levine) writes:
> The fact that I found this test, suggests that it was in use some time
> in the past ten years. I am curious when and how it was devised, whether
> it's still in use, and for what clients it's intended.

If I recall my Psych of Women correctly, the Inventory was devised by feminist
psychologist Dr. Sandra Bem.  The result of the inventory are plotted on a
"masculine"/"feminine" cartesian axes set, as follows:

Quadrant I (high masculine/high feminine): subject is culturally androgynous
        II (low  "        /high "       ): "       "  "          feminine
       III (low  "        /low  "       ): "       "  "          neuter (?)
        IV (hihg "        /low  "       ): "       "  "          masculine

If it is given to anyone other than people taking psych of women courses, I
don't know.  Implicit in the test is the understanding that these are cultural
definitions, not eternal truths.

-- 
Daniel B. Holzman                    | Eight Words the Witch's Rede Fufill:
HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET                  | An It Harm None, Do What You Will
HOLZMAN@FNALC.FNAL.GOV.INTERNET      |
                                     | All Acts of Love and Pleasure are
Love doesn't subtract,               | Her Rituals
   it multiplies    - Heinlein       |
                                     | Speak the Word.
Disclaimer:  Fermilab's far too large to have an opinion, let alone mine.
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, 22 Dec 1992 19:00:26 GMT

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:

>>In article <BzML6w.Hxw@news.cso.uiuc.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
 
>>>I understand from sci.math that appearance
>>>discrimination against women *is* an issue. This newsgroup carried a
>>>posting from a male mathematician. He was *extremely* upset, because,
>>>in his role of evaluating job applications, he had received a
>>>letter from a colleague, asking him to take on the "mission" of
>>>finding out whether a female mathematician was cute or not!

>Was this for a job interview or job related? Or because someone was
>interested in meeting someone else?

This was made very clear in the posting. The colleague did want
him to find this out, so they could decide whether or not to hire her
on this basis. 

>Rich
>payner@netcom.com

Lenore Levine
levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism