HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mk0i@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (MONICA KELLNER)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: A feminist style socio-economic reform!
Date: 22 Jul 1992 20:49:52 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

[Moderator's note: excessive included text trimmed.]

In article <14iefnINN3pd@agate.berkeley.edu>, maxtal@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (John MA
X Skaller) writes:
>In article <1992Jul20.010819.29064@lugb.latrobe.edu.au> AGRSS@lure.latrobe.edu.
au ("SUBBAIAH,Santharam") writes:
>>REFORM 1.
>>      "All women who deliver normal children should be compensated
>>in monetory terms for their child bearing services".
>       "Counter proposal: all people who create new children
>should be severely fined for bringing even more people into
>an overcrowded world."
>       You're assuming it's a service. [...]
> [...] I tend to think those who
>bring children into the world who cannot afford to keep them
>have something to answer for.

Though having a child is a personal matter, that new person will be part of
society.
If we keep making the life of a new person a personal matter of his/her
parent/s, we will continue producing a society where lots of people feel
outsiders and keep one of the highest unjustified delinquency levels of the
world. Why scrue a child because of some deficiency in the parent/s strength?
A child is a private matter but also a societies matter, as all other
societies consider it.
-- 
                                   Monica


-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: The reform twisted!!!
Date: 22 Jul 1992 00:43:51 GMT
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Distribution: world
    <14hv2nINNon@agate.berkeley.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

>RAM SUBBAIAH writes:

>> REFORM 1.
>>         "All women who deliver normal children should be compensated
>> in monetory terms for their child bearing services".

I do hope you're not serious about this.  However, in the spirit of
fun debate, consider the economic's responce.

According to economics and Adam Smith, the price of an item is
determined by the intersection of the supply and demand curves.  In
short, if the supply is too low, the price should rise, and encorage
more production.  However, if the supply is too high, then the price
should drop, discuraging production.

Now, I think we can all agree that the population bomb is going to
strike.  The planet cannot support a human population that grows
without bounds, as it does currently.  Therefore, we need to lower the
price of children, to reduce production.  Since the current price is
zero (well, sort of) we should make in negative.

Therefore, I counter-propose that all successful mothers should *pay*
the state for filling the planet with this excess population.
Further, this payment should be adjusted on some periodic basis, to
maintain approximate stability for the planets population as a whole.

-Randy
-- 
==============================================================================
Operation Rescue has suggested that its members get their children arrested,
and not themselves.  The bail is cheaper.  -- National Public Radio 6/26/92
============================================Randy@ms.uky.edu==================


-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: men's issues vs. women's issues
Date: 23 Jul 1992 17:50:53 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

muffy@mica.berkeley.EDU (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
| >Not to mention a definition of "feminist."  *smile*.  For example, my
| >version of feminism includes working on the problems of both men and
| >women, just with a recognition (or belief) that women's problems are
| >worse and that I therefore want to apply more energy to those problems.
| >I do not treat men and women differently, just the various societal
| >problems which involve men, women, or both.

In article <14hncuINNsa5@agate.berkeley.edu> dwm@osf.org writes:
| 	Aha!  So you admit you're not a feminist at all:
| 	you're a humanist!    Welcome aboard!  8-)
| 	A sense of perspective is a wonderful thing.

I think by "humanist" "liberal" (in the classical sense) is
meant.  Is a feminist just a humanist or a classical liberal?
We can approach this question by noting that 495 of the 500
CEOs of the Fortune 500 are male, as are eight of the nine
Supreme Court justices, and 98 of 100 U.S. senators.  We
know that most versions of feminism believe these figures
are evidence of some kind of problem, but does humanism or
classical liberalism?  After all, all those males are at
least allegedly human beings, and most of them probably
got where they are through legal exercise of their powers
in a liberal state.  What is the humanist take on the
situation?  How come we don't know already, as we do when
we say "feminist"?
-- 
Gordon Fitch | gcf@panix.com | uunet!cmcl2!panix!gcf 
*       1238 Blg. Grn. Sta., N.Y., N.Y. 10274      *



-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: hans@software.mitel.com (Hans Johnsen)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Patterns...
Date: 24 Jul 1992 17:31:14 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

>Mik Bickis writes...
>(many lines deleted...)
>
>MB> But even if there *is* a pattern, does that justify an
>MB> "overreaction"?  Let's switch genders.  I read in the paper a
>MB> while ago about a man who punched his wife because "she cut the
>MB> toast wrong".  (He liked it cut diagonally, she cut it laterally).
>MB> A brutal overreaction?  But suppose it was part of a pattern.
>MB> Suppose she had systematically ignored his preferences for many
>MB> years.  She always bought the kind of beer he didn't like. She
>MB> would cook dishes she knew he abhored.  She bought him shirts in
>MB> colours he didn't like wearing.  And then one day *again*, she cut
>MB> the toast wrong.  Is his reaction justified?

goid@zooid.guild.ORG (Will Steeves) writes:
(many lines deleted)

>In the case that Mik described, though, the desire for control seems
>quite obviously on the other side...[ie: with the woman]


Au Contraire. It seems to me that the desire for control DEFINITELY
lies with the man in this case. It is POSSIBLE, but not necessarily
true, that there was a desire for control on the part of the woman.
It is also possible that she was simply careless of his 'needs'
or didn't care enough to do what he wanted.

Of course your whole arguement assumes that it is her DUTY to cut the
toast, buy his beer and shirts, etc. If she is nice enough to do it
for him, he should accept the results. As the old adage goes, if you
want something done right (ie: the way you want it done), then do it
yourself.

In short, there is only one 'mitigating factor' in violence, and that
is defense of humanity. Define that as loosely as you like, but don't
use any other justification or you won't get a scrap of agreement from
me.
-- 
Take off all your clothes and walk down the street waving a machete
and firing an Uzi, and terrified citizens will phone the police and
report: "There's a naked person outside!" - Mike Nichols


-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: tweaver@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Tim Weaver)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: men's issues vs. women's issues
Date: 27 Jul 1992 16:39:23 GMT
Organization: Kalamazoo College
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

>I think of life as a hike in the woods.  Here the
>man has hiked over stones, down ravines, up mountains,
>stealthily past sleeping critters.  Now he stands at the
>raging river and he looks over to his companion for
>assistance.  Well, the companion is not by his side
>because she is still about a quarter mile back struggling
>to get out of the last ravine.
>
I'm curious as to which ravine this is.  Is it the one where
he carelessly kicked a few rocks loose which tumbled down
the ravine on top of her?  Or is it the ravine where the only
way for him to get out was by standing on her shoulders?

[for various reasons, I didn't catch the original post, so if I'm
taking things too far out of context, let me know]
-- 
|Timothy E. Weaver           | Kalamazoo College  |  (616) 383-5656        |
|Database Programmer/Analyst | 1200 Academy       | These are MY opinions! |
|email:  tweaver@kzoo.edu    | Kalamazoo MI 49006 | Mine!!  Mine!!  Mine!! |
+----------------------------+--------------------+------------------------+


-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: imprint@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (IMPRINT -- UW's Student Newspaper)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Gwen Jacob on S.J. Raphae
Date: 30 Jul 1992 17:08:58 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

[Moderator's note: excessive included text trimmed.]

In article <92Jul25.150908edt.9436@zooid.guild.org>, goid@zooid.guild.ORG (Will Steeves) writes:
> imprint@watserv1.waterloo.edu (IMPRINT -- UW's Student Newspaper) writes...
> I-USN> [...Gwen Jacobs on SJR...] She's a very
> I-USN> eloquent speaker and handles hostile crowds (read: threatened men)
> I-USN> quite well.                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> That comment was uncalled for, Dave, not to mention somewhat ignorant
> of the fact that the only people who do not like the idea of women
> going topless, are not just "threatened men," and that many women have
> made the *choice* to keep their breasts private.

But not many women would *deny* other women the option of exercising that
choice.  The comment was made in reference to occasions on which I've seen
 her speak.  In audiences that are overwhelmingly female, the men are always
the most vocal and hostile - "threatened" was my interpretation; you're 
welcome to draw your own.

> At any rate, there are numerous *women* who are "threatened" by the
> idea of going topless because they think that it's just plain stupid,
> or because they think that their breasts are private and should only
> be shown to a lover.  True, this IS a function of the "sexualisation
> of female breasts," but if a woman makes this choice, she should not
> be called a "patriarchal slave" for it.
>

I don't recall calling anyone a "patriarchal slave". 

- Dave Thomson
- opinions mine, not Imprint's


-- 



-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: goid@zooid.guild.ORG (Will Steeves)
Subject: Patterns...
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Date: 23 Jul 92 19:42:56 GMT

Mik Bickis writes...
(many lines deleted...)

MB> But even if there *is* a pattern, does that justify an
MB> "overreaction"?  Let's switch genders.  I read in the paper a
MB> while ago about a man who punched his wife because "she cut the
MB> toast wrong".  (He liked it cut diagonally, she cut it laterally).
MB> A brutal overreaction?  But suppose it was part of a pattern.
MB> Suppose she had systematically ignored his preferences for many
MB> years.  She always bought the kind of beer he didn't like. She
MB> would cook dishes she knew he abhored.  She bought him shirts in
MB> colours he didn't like wearing.  And then one day *again*, she cut
MB> the toast wrong.  Is his reaction justified?

I would obviously say "no," but I would say however, that the story AT
LEAST provides an explantion that the husband is NOT an evil brute,
but had severely lost control.

No, this behavior is NOT justified, but the issue of *circumstances*
has been all but ignored by feminists eager to show men as
"patriarchal oppressors," and indeed, in this case, the circumstances
clearly show a *pattern* of provocation.

Still, in spite of that fact, I would STILL find him guilty of a
crime, but the factor of previous provocation is a mitigating factor
which is often ignored by those who would seek to make ALL instances
of domestic violence where women are the victims, into a black and
white case of "he did it because she was a woman and he wanted to
control her".

In the case that Mik described, though, the desire for control seems
quite obviously on the other side...

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                     "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Boldy going Forward because we can't find Reverse!

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: goid@zooid.guild.ORG (Will Steeves)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Gwen Jacob on S.J. Raphae
Date: 27 Jul 92 14:47:09 GMT

imprint@watserv1.waterloo.edu (IMPRINT -- UW's Student Newspaper) writes...
I-USN>      She's going to New York later on this week to appear on Sally
I-USN> Jesse Raphael (sp?).  I don't know what kind of a delay there is
I-USN> between the show's taping and actual airing, but I though soc.feminism
I-USN> readers might want to keep an eye out for that show.  She's a very
I-USN> eloquent speaker and handles hostile crowds (read: threatened men)
I-USN> quite well.                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That comment was uncalled for, Dave, not to mention somewhat ignorant
of the fact that the only people who do not like the idea of women
going topless, are not just "threatened men," and that many women have
made the *choice* to keep their breasts private.

As for me, I couldn't care less - If a woman (or man) *even* wanted to
walk around NAKED, I wouldn't care, nor would I therefore attempt to
stop them, but I assure you that they would NOT be immune to having me
laugh my guts out at them.  Mind you, this is my own viewpoint, having
continental European roots from countries where going topless is as
European as apple pie is American (...NOT :-) ).  I can tolerate it,
but IMHO, nobody should try to legislate people from doing things that
aren't hurting anyone else (and I HARDLY think that going topless is
hurting anyone), but at the same time, people should be responsible
for the choices they make, and if one of those choices causes some men
and/or women to gawk, laugh, or insult them, then they should have to
just live with it.

At any rate, there are numerous *women* who are "threatened" by the
idea of going topless because they think that it's just plain stupid,
or because they think that their breasts are private and should only
be shown to a lover.  True, this IS a function of the "sexualisation
of female breasts," but if a woman makes this choice, she should not
be called a "patriarchal slave" for it.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                    "Neil Hull is GOiD"
Universities Coordinator for In Search Of Justice
ZOOiD BBS Representative - Not!
(416) 322-7876  ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The ZOO Of Ids
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * --T-A+G-L-I+N-E--+M-E-A+S-U-R+I-N-G+--G-A+U-G-E--

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: muffy%remarque.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.berkeley.EDU (Muffy Barkocy)
Subject: voting/drafting (was Re: men's issues vs. women's issues)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
Date: 30 Jul 92 17:57:17 GMT
	<l6klejINNmu9@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>
	<MUFFY.92Jul21122131@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<l6vd2rINNril@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>
	<9207241927.AA25193@mica.berkeley.edu> <robert.712443872@labyrinth>

In article <robert.712443872@labyrinth> uunet!infmx!robert@ncar.ucar.EDU (Robert Coleman) writes:
>muffy@mica.berkeley.EDU (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

>>Well, as an example, look at the times when women couldn't vote.
>>That was an injustice to women, but there was no corresponding
>>injustice to men (ignoring the issue of race, which is not relevant
>>to my example).

>No?  Tell me, what are your responsibilities when you are a
>participant in governmental decisions?  Could one of those
>responsibilities be putting your number into the lottery when that
>government decides on military action?

It *could* be, but it clearly is not.  Note that at one point, only
people who owned land could vote, but people who didn't own land still
had to fight (indeed, *more* of them had to fight).  Note that during
the Civil War, both slaves and free black men fought, but they could
not vote.  Finally, as you yourself point out, even when women *were*
allowed to vote, they were not considered to be draftable.

I agree that both not allowing women to vote and drafting men stem
from society viewing men and women as significantly different (as do
all the other "gender issues), but I do not see any evidence of any
closer relationship between these two notions.

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy | muffy@mica.berkeley.edu | wi.4636@wizvax.methuen.ma.us
~Little round planet/in a big universe/sometimes it looks blessed/
 sometimes it looks cursed/Depends on what you look at, obviously/
 But even more it depends on the way that you see~ - Bruce Cockburn

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: orourke@sophia.smith.edu (Joseph O'Rourke)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: soc.feminism, women in science
Date: 24 Jul 1992 17:31:44 GMT
Organization: Smith College, Northampton, MA, US
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

In article <9207212023.AA02474@lebesgue.msri.org> lubkin@msri.ORG (Sharon Lubkin) writes:
>I have often heard the fact that a large percentage of successful
>women (in physics, in math, and indeed in many non-scientific fields)
>come from single-sex colleges, but I have never seen such figures
>backed up by a control for _age_.

I am not answering your question, but here are a few statistics,
>from the National Center for Educational Statistics:

life science majors		women college's produce 47% more
physical science majors		women college's produce 92% more

That's more than coeducational colleges.  I don't have the original
report (I'm quoting from a secondary source), so I can't give more 
specifics that would help interpret these statistics.



-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: Jamie Andrews <jamie@cs.sfu.ca>
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Matrilineal societies- have they existed before?
Date: 30 Jul 1992 20:01:26 GMT
Organization: CSS, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

In article <157a3mINNss9@agate.berkeley.edu> Pat Fisher writes:
>	Is there any evidence that matrilineal societies have existed
>in human history?  An anthropologist/sociologist by the name of Fisher
>has said that hunter-gatherer societies in the past were often
>matrilineal in nature.

     There are matrilineal societies existing today all over the
world, even in North America.  Many North American Indian
peoples had a matrilineal system, which just means that property
and/or family membership is passed down from the mother to the
children.  The Hopi in north-eastern Arizona, for instance,
still practise this to some extent.

     There is also evidence that the Pictish people (who lived
in north-eastern Scotland from at least AD 200 - AD 843) were
matrilineal.

     Note that "matrilineal" is not necessarily the same
thing as "matrilocal" (you live in your mother's house) or
"matriarchal" (rule of entire society by women).  For
instance, the Hopi were/are matrilineal and matrilocal but
not matriarchal; whereas traditional European society was/is
patrilineal, patrilocal, and patriarchal.

--Jamie.
  jamie@cs.sfu.ca
"Every \item command in item_list must have an optional argument." LaTeX pg.168


-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.