HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Some friendly advise
X-To: ROBERT SHEAFFER
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 01:26:00 GMT

sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes...
RS> In article <BywnGn.Gw@nic.umass.edu> quilty@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Humberto Hu
RS> toldi) writes:
RS> >Just looking at some of the many responses to R.Sheaffer's babbling on
RS> >this usergroup, I thought I'd share my way of dealing with it.  It's
RS> >not airtight, but it might save all you nice netters some time and
RS> >mental stress:  (consult your manual as necessary if not using 'rn')
RS> >
RS> >       /Sheaffer/h:j

RS> Then it looks like *I'll* be having the Last Word in any argument over
RS> HIS postings!


Well, at least you have a positive outlook!  :-)

"Every cloud has a silver lining" and all that lot...

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * "Easy credit, terms available..." - Satan
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: CALLING ALL WOMEN..WH
X-To: LJF
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 04:43:00 GMT

farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes...
LJ> In article <1992Nov26.015526.20009@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu> mkagalen@lynx.
LJ> northeastern.edu (michael kagalenko) writes:
LJ> >In article <1992Nov24.163544.1@hamp.hampshire.edu> awinters@hamp.hampshire.
LJ> writes:
LJ> >>              .................................
LJ> >>  .......  but why is this feminism forum dominated by men?  I cannot help
LJ> >>but notice and be concerned here, when I see more women in the diet suppor
LJ> >                                              ^^^^^^^^^^        ^^^^^^^^^^^
LJ> >>news group then I do on the feminism news group.
LJ> > ^^^^^^^^^^                  ^^^^^^^^

LJ> Who knows?  Maybe women in the diet support newsgroup know they'll
LJ> receive support, not be called fat bitches who are probably frigid.  I
LJ> suspect the most interesting convos on women and feminism take place
LJ> in the mailing lists.  (If I had a dollar for every woman who says she
LJ> avoids soc.women and alt.feminism like the plague because of the nasty
                                                                     ^^^^^
LJ> atmosphere on these newsgroups, I could pay off my Visa bill...)
    ^^^^^^^^^^


And you really think that you are totally innocent and absolutely blameless of
your own charge of contributing to the "nasty atmosphere"?

IMHO, anyone who writes here has *some* responsibility in maintaining the
quality of atmosphere.  I find it strange to see posters complaing about
an atmosphere which they have helped to create (Hell, even *I* don't consider
myself "innocent" either ... Oh, boy, and watch the flames fly after I made
THIS confession <-: )

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * All the cool rats drink beer.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women,soc.men
From: michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael)
Subject: Re: Gender differences - Sophie Germain
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 13:54:50 GMT

In <1992Dec11.165749.27316@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>I'm surious, why should -anyone- outside a field have any say? Should the
>teamsters have a right to dictate generic research? Should physicists
>be able to arbitrate contracts for the teamsters?

>This makes no sense.

Well before blacks and women enjoyed the right to vote we could have said,
"Why does anyone outside the voting ranks want to vote?"

Well, maybe the argument isn't strictly the same, but its similar.  Many
women may not have the interest in joining math now, but they also realize
that their interests were influenced when they were young, and they are
tired of it.  They realize that as more and more women join the ranks of
fields now predominated by men that they will begin enjoying the same
benefits that men do (all of which are not strictly financial or powerful
politically).

And in a more general sense, people outside a field should always have a
say when the results of that field impact their lives in threatening ways.
This is not something that happens daily, but it is another answer to
your question.

    Michael Stanley (michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: jean@cs.cornell.edu (Jean M. Petrosino)
Subject: ...Mysogynistic Without Apology
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 18:34:11 GMT


This is to Mr. J  Dunphy:
		Just as the women you seem to keep involving yourself with,
you are a time bomb looking for a place to happen.  I hope I never have to deal
with you or any of your aquaintences (both male and female) in my lifetime.  











Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael)
Subject: Re: Football: Robert Sheaffer's Central Metaphor?
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 18:20:35 GMT

In <1992Dec18.193705.12869@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.232603.3881@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>>	Women in football? Always as cheerleaders, who are usually
>>scantily clad sex objects. They are not really important to the game,
>>it must be said. I personally have nothing against exhibitionism in
>>principle, just against exploitation.
>Yes, a well-paid female actress (for that is what these are), having
>an exciting, fast-paced life and undoubtedly dozens of highly attractive
>suitors, is *exploited* something fierce. We've got to make them stop
>doing this, for their own good. Frankly, I think they should
>all be forced to wear the chador (sp?), like the cheerleaders at
>Teheran State U.

Personally I don't care whether men or women are dressed scantily
or in sexually provocative ways.  I don't care if men or women do
strip acts on stage.  I don't care if men or women appear partially
clothed or complete nude in magazines.  If those men and women choose
to do so for money, that is THEIR decision and not anyone elses to
object to.

If however our culture leaves men or women with no other choice than
to do these things for money AND these acts invade the actors
privacy or cause psychological harm, then I think we need to take
a look at our system and fix the problem.  So long as these things are
done by free choice, it is not exploitation.

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

     Michael Stanley (michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu)
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: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 19:34:46 GMT

RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET writes:

>Let me explain my response to Lenore Levine's talk about `non-white
>mathematics'.  I did NOT take her to be a racist, but I took her argument
>to be something like this:

>Rohit says that:
>A)  A person  with mathematical talent is likely to overcome or at least
>might overcome obstacles.

>B)  Asians did not produce mathematics till they came into contact with
>Europeans.

>C) From (A) and (B)  we would be right to conclude tha Asians do not have
>mathematical talent.

>D)  But in fact Asians have produced good mathematics, hence they do
>have talent.

>  Hence (A) must be wrong.

>  My point was that since (B) is incorrect, the argument fails.

>Rohit Parikh

I did not say B) (as I mentioned to you in private correspondence),
and as you ought to be able to tell, from reading my postings 
carefully. I did say that the pseudoscientific racists thought B), 
incorrectly. (And one of the reasons they were able to even advance B)
as an argument, was that for hundreds of years, there had been a
post-Renaissance culture of European mathematics in which very few
non-Europeans participated -- although non-Europeans, even in
the 19th century, were practicing mathematics in their own cultures.
See the Mathematical Intelligencer.)

I did advance another argument for which B) was actually true.
Remember Aristotle saying that the blue-eyed barbarians living
to the north of him were incapable of abstract thought? It *was*
true, the blue-eyes hadn't practiced much mathematics in his time...

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. 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. 

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.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Subject: Re: Football: Robert Sheaffer's Central Metaphor?
Originator: hillyard@tiger.msc.cornell.edu
Reply-To: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell-Materials-Science-Center
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 09:28:40 GMT

From article <1992Dec16.232603.3881@s1.gov>, by lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich):
[...]
> 
> 	Women in football? Always as cheerleaders, who are usually
> scantily clad sex objects. They are not really important to the game,
> it must be said. I personally have nothing against exhibitionism in
> principle, just against exploitation.

Few NFL teams have cheerleading squads, and most college squads typically
have both men and women on them.  Another staple of college football is the
band, I'm not sure of the typical sex ratio.  No, the cheerleaders and band
are not important to the game; but football is entertainment, and I think
they add to that.

> 
> 	Looking at this description, it is what seems the most like
> RS's description of how to get ahead: by being violent and aggressive
> to others. And it also fits what he seems to think about the female
> sex: that women are genetically programmed to find their greatest
> happiness in servicing men and children, with exceptions to this rule
> being irrelevant.

Perhaps an urban legend, but I believe one study concluded that football
players are no more violent than average.  With one exception:  linebacker.

> 
> 	Those concerned about sexism will also find football
> objectionable, though that might be corrected by setting up all-female
> football leagues.

How does creating a league that discriminates by sex correct sexism?  Female
football players are few and far between, but for the most part they aren't
barred from participating.

SEH
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women,soc.men
From: fsars@acad3.alaska.edu
Subject: Re: False allegations of abuse / Chesler's book...
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 00:26:18 GMT

In article <BzKF5s.DG2@world.std.com>, srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller) writes:
> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>>I am *not* saying that I
>>would consider it a good idea to censor her book, I *do* believe that we
>>should do *something* about books that instruct people on how to break the
>>law!!.  Also note that this distinction is the reason why I have cross
>>posted to misc.legal.
> 
> It's a good distinction.  For what it's worth, in law school the
> professors (notably Nadine Strossen, president of ACLU) usually
> suggested what they called "counterspeech."  That is, if A writes a
> how-to book on crime, B can write a book deploring how-to books on
> crime and the people that apply A's lessons.  Theoretically, the
> members of an enlightened society see the wisdom of one book over
> the other (whichever they decide is which), and make an informed
> decision about their actions.

This argument reminds me of the New York Times durng the late sixties,
when all the demonstrations were going on.  They published, in their
paper, instructions on how to make Molotov cocktails.  They caught a
lot of heat (no pun intended) for that, but the authorities never held
them liable for it.  === Al
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:5968 soc.women:21428 soc.men:21109
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: Gender Differences - Sophie Germain
From: <RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Sunday, 13 Dec 1992 01:34:10 EST
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

-<RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
-
->in `white', i.e. Roman notation:
->How much is CXVIII times XI  ?
-
->Or would you rather solve it in non-white notation?
->How much is 118 times 11 ?
-
->The second problem is posed in the notation which is known in the
->West as Arabic notation but the notation is actually Indian.  It is
->known in the West as Arabic notation because it was the Arabs who
->brought it to the West from India.
-
-Ahem!  Both Arabs and Indians are caucasian!

That is why I also pointed out that printing, paper currency and gun
powder are all Chinese inventions.  Of course, gun powder might not
be thought of as a `contribution', but then, if you use it primarily
in fire crackers, that is not so bad, is it?

                                                --  Michal

Rohit Parikh
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.postmodern
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: Nietzsche Redux (was: Re: Robert's "Book")
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:11:19 GMT

In article <1992Dec7.203454.19583@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>
>It's clear enough.  In my last passage through this neck of
>the woods, I gave a precis of _The_Genealogy_of_Morals_ very
>like that above, and asked any Nietzsche fans if he _really_
>meant what he said.  Because to me, while Nietzsche's analysis
>of Resentment as a development of the Will-to-Power is right
>on the mark, his critique of it is silly.  It is clear to me
>that, if the Will-to-Power as Resentment overthrows the Will-
>to-Power as something else, it is the stronger and _healthier_
>(if you will) form of the Will-to-Power.  

No, this shows quite a misunderstanding of Nietzschean thought.
If there is any word that Nietzsche wouls NEVER apply to
_ressentiment_, that word is "healthy." He spoke of it as a
kind of sickness, an infection that was contagious to the
healthy. Because the resentful are sick, they must be ministered
to by a priest who himself is sick, and hence the preaching
of "ascetic ideals."  The resentment-filled ideology of
Christianity did not conquer becasue it was strong; rather, 
by cunning deceit, these anemic little vampires sucked the
life and health out of Rome, leaving it emaciated like a
corpse, at which time even German barbarians could conquer it.
Really, Nietzsche is QUITE explicit about this, I cannot see
how you can miss it.

>  I admit I have
>not read his work closely; after fifty or so pages of _The_
>_Genealogy_of_Morals_ I gave up, because I thought Nietzsche 

Ah, HERE is how you missed it.
>
>Yes, but people like Robert Sheaffer and certain others I
>need not name, but who were far worse, thought they had found
>a philosophical basis for their theories and actions in
>Nietzsche; and had Nietzsche lived to see this, it would have
>been advisable for him to reconsider his ideas.  I know I do

Yes, you've read all of fifty pages of Nietzsche, but you're quite
certain that this guy Sheaffer has it all wrong. What if Nietzsche
was even *more* Politically Incorrect than you dare think?

By the way, my article on Nietzsche's "Der Antichrist" was published
in _Free Inquiry_ magazine, Winter 1988/89 issue. You might want
to read it. How many articles on Nietzsche have YOU or
Humberto published?

-- 
  
        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,soc.men,soc.women
From: michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael)
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 17:50:03 GMT

In <1992Dec18.210810.24366@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>                                  In just a few well-chosen paragraphs,
>Dave was able to show the absolute inanity of one of the principal
>tenets of feminism, that 'violence is a special womens' problem'.
>The only reason that feminism has gotten as far as it has is because it
>has been able to badger its critics into stunned silence. We must be
>silent no more.

Interesting.  The first time I've ever heard that 'violence is a
special womens' problem' is from you Robert.  I've never heard that from
a woman in my life.  And if some women do espout that, then I would
lay odds its not the majority nor is it a tenet of feminism.

I have however heard that 'violence is a problem that women have to
deal with'.  Huge difference there.  And just because men have to
deal with violence doesn't mean that women can't address the issue
as well.  If you have a problem, get out there and complain about it
or do something about it.  But don't slam women when they complain or
try to do something.  Just because you are willing to sit in silence
does not mean they have to.

    Michael Stanley (michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Subject: Re: False allegations of abuse / Chesler's book...
Organization: QQQCLC
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 07:47:29 GMT

In article <1992Dec20.014604.17592@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes...
>AA> Anyway, the book instructs women on how to make accusations of
>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>AA> abuse, the virtues of lying in order to get sole custody--you know, the
>    ^^^^^^
>AA> normal, level-headed, rape, pillage and burn, "`for the sake of the
>AA> children' women MUST be the sole custodian" spiel.
>
>Are you *deadly* sure of your interpretation of the book?  If what you
>are saying is strictly correct, Ms. Chesler's book is instructing women
>to do something which is a federal *felony*, ie., fabricating a charge
>that is known to be false, and I am sure that the authorities will have
>had a word with her, before allowing the book onto the shelves

	Nope, not in the US. There is nothing illegal about a "how-to"
book for crime. Nor should there be.

						Kayembee
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel)
Subject: Re: My Apologies (was Re: Mysogynist Bullshit)
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 18:50:43 GMT

levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:

...[deletiae]...

>For those who cannot get the Chicago Tribune. The rape story involves
>several young men who sexually abused a young woman with a mental
>age of about six, promising her they would take her on a "date" if she
>submitted to them. The abuse was very graphically described.

>After the abuse was done, the woman waited for hours for the young
>men to come back and take her on the "date" they had promised. 

>The mens' defense was that they were engaging in *consensual* sex. Ugh!

This naturally brings up the question: in what sense can a mentally
handicapped person give consent to sex?

In this case (I have not read the story, and am only reacting to what
Lenore wrote) it seems essentially impossible for the young woman to
give consent. Does this mean that she, and others like her, can never
have sex? Who will determine competence in such cases?

Regards,
       H. Biesel
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Football: Robert Sheaffer's Central Metaphor?
Date: 18 Dec 92 21:06:36 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:

>In article <1992Dec16.232603.3881@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

>>	Women in football? Always as cheerleaders, who are usually
>>scantily clad sex objects. They are not really important to the game,
>>it must be said. I personally have nothing against exhibitionism in
>>principle, just against exploitation.

>Yes, a well-paid female actress (for that is what these are), having
>an exciting, fast-paced life and undoubtedly dozens of highly attractive
>suitors, is *exploited* something fierce. We've got to make them stop
>doing this, for their own good. 

This is the same argument that Jack Benny used, to defend his treatment
of Rochester. He said, "Rochester laughs all the way to the bank."

Lenore Levine
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:6190 alt.individualism:6119
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: I'm So Confused
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:53:13 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.033321.23119@news.cs.brandeis.edu> st890674@pip.cc.brandeis.edu writes:
>Having a man find you attractive should not entail being sexually harassed.  
>"Nice tits (ass, etc.) is not an example of someone trying to tell you you're
>attractive, but trying to tell you "I have power over you, to demean you
>and humiliate you."  You aren't confused at all: you recognized the difference
>between a sex object and being found attractive by men, and you're right.

On the other hand, *some* women really get turned on by a man telling 
them things like this. (Of course, it has to be the right man: if she
thinks the guy is neat, she'll appreciate it; if not, she'll get
mad.) But how is the poor guy to know what reaction the woman will have
(arousal or anger) before he tries it?
-- 
  
        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