HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 12:41:03 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: mydog in exile

In article <1992Nov13.001840.8043@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
| In article <F3XSB2HQ@cc.swarthmore.edu> auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer) writes:
| >In article <1992Nov8.180831.20166@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
| >>None of this reflects on "spousal notification" as noted
| >>previously.  Marriage is a contract; everyone should read
| >>the rules before they get into it.  
| >
| >I find myself with Gordon on this issue.  I only regret having wavered slightly
| >on the issue.  Father's notification would involve a lot of unnecessary
| >diagnostic procedures being performed upon pregnant women and/or newly born
| >children.  Having sex does not imply a contractual relationship.  There is
|             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| >no criminalization of the father here.  I knew I was right all along.  I hate
| >logic; it can be so discouraging in its misapplication.
| >
| >I am not so sure I even like spousal notification.  If it is part of a marriage
| >contract, certainly this clause should be respected.  If it were to be part of
| >every marriage contract, that would be another thing.
| 
| Oh?
| 
| Try telling that to the people who are screaming about "deadbeat dads" who
| are *including* fathers not married to the mother!!!

It seems obvious that not every obligation is contractual.

One might look at the obligations of parents toward their
children as implied contracts, but that's pretty metaphorical.

While I'm in this thread, I'd like to note that while
people are willing to argue at great length about the
obligations of the father and sometimes of the mother
as they are and should be, no one takes the point of
view of the child and asks how, having been born, it
is to be fed and clothed.  I realize that in most of
your minds, that is an entirely different subject.
-- 

 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Xref: sparky soc.women:19172 talk.politics.theory:4819 sci.philosophy.tech:3984 sci.philosophy.meta:2445 sci.classics:950
From: isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell)
Newsgroups: soc.women,talk.politics.theory,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.classics
Subject: Re: Plato's Views on Women
Date: 9 Nov 92 14:14:59
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
Distribution: inet
	<1992Nov8.084242.5709@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>
	<1992Nov9.100337.12852@genie.slhs.udel.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panther.ai.mit.edu
In-reply-to: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu's message of 9 Nov 92 10:03:37 GMT

starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
|I don't know who wrote this:

Gordan Fitch, I beleive.

|}>Brian, you haven't done the reading.  I suggest -- in the case
|}>of feminism -- you peruse some of the philosophical works 
|}>periodically listed in the soc.feminism newsgroup.  Surely
|}>it must occur to you that what you call sex must have
|}>considerable importance if it was the basis of shutting half
|}>of the human race out of most of what we fondly call 
|}>history.

|The thing that strikes me as odd about this is that in order to truly know
|that half of the human race was shut out of most of history, one would have
|to know the history of the half that's claimed to be shut out.  This is
|illogical.  No wonder women's studies is faulted on methodological grounds,
|if this is the sort of thought it tends towards.

That's not true at all.  One would merely have to know that it was
done and that it had been the practice to do it.  Similarly, only the
few could know while the masses were taught differently.  This was/is
done to the histories of Asia and Africa, for example (at least with
respect to our version of "World History").  For that matter,
inventions by slaves were almost always credited (and patented) by
their masters in America.  We do not have to know many of those
inventions to know that it was widely practiced and therefore that
this part of their history was "shut out" and that, indeed, they were
"shut out of history."

I suppose one might claim that knowing this practice comprising
knowing their history, but I tend to think that a pedantic and narrow
view.

Beyond that, it is clear that the poster was referring to the
importance of gender.  Whether one thinks that gender *should* be a
relevant characteristic in history, it remains a somewhat obvious
truth that it has been (and, for that matter, that it is).  Therefore,
it is often "of importance" when studying history (or contemporary
events).


--
Peace.
     "[I support efforts] to limit the terms of members of Congress,
      especially members of the House and members of the Senate."
                           - Vice President Dan Quayle
                                   -\--/-
    Don't just adopt opinions     |  \/  |       Some of you are homeboys
          develop them.           |  /\  | but only I am The Homeboy From hell
                                   -/--\-

Xref: sparky soc.women:19501 alt.feminism:4346 soc.men:19228
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: what is sexist? (was Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Date: 13 Nov 92 10:17:00
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<38MD03ktbajB00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>
	<MUFFY.92Nov12152904@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<1992Nov13.032143.25567@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: mkagalen@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu's message of Fri, 13 Nov 1992 03:21:43 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.032143.25567@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu> mkagalen@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (michael kagalenko) writes:
>In article <MUFFY.92Nov12152904@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>In article <38MD03ktbajB00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James Preston) writes:
>>> [...] My dictionary [...]
>>> Similarly, "sexism" is defined as:
>>> "Discrimination by members of one sex against the other, especially by
>>> men agains women, based on the assumption that one sex is superior."
>>> Notice that it clearly says *especially* by men against women, not
>>> exclusively.  And again, no qualifiers about the "non-dominant group".
>>
>>Well, that's very interesting.  If we accept your dictionary's
>>definition of sexism, it would follow that a woman who discriminated
>>against men, but did not assume that women were superior to men, would
>>not be sexist, since the discrimination has to be based on the
>>assumption that one sex is superior.  In that case, something like
>>affirmative action would not be sexist, since it is based on the
>>assumption that neither sex is superior.

> that author 
>of this posting really has troubles with logical reasoning.  

Indeed you do.  Let me try to help you out...

>Exactly the opposite. If neither sex is superior/inferior, affirmative 
>actions simply aren't needed. I've noticed several times, 

What I said was:

1. If it is a necessary condition of sexism that the discriminatory
action is based on an assumption that one sex is superior and
2. If it is the basic assumption of affirmative action that the two
sexes are equal in ability
3. Then affirmative action is not sexist.

Your discussion of whether or not affirmative action is *necessary* if
both sexes are equal is, perhaps, an interesting topic, but it is
totally irrelvant to the question of whether or not affirmative action
is SEXIST under the above definition.

If you send me your address, I can send you a good introductory logic
text, but I'm not sure if it would really help.

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
~Weavers' fingers flying on the loom/patterns shift too fast to be
 discerned/all these years of thinking/ended up like this/in front
 of all this beauty/understanding nothing~ - Bruce Cockburn
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: Am I "exploiting" this woman?
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 18:01:23 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <1992Nov5.153742.20271@cbnews.cb.att.com> lib@cbnews.cb.att.com writes:

> In article <Bx80u8.4zK@ccu.umanitoba.ca> kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts) writes:
> >
> >What a person reads, wherever they read it, should be their own business.  I
> >still don't understand why someone should be upset with that woman for
> >reading an erotic magazine.  Granted, it is easy to come up with specific
> >incidences, but I don't think it is valid as a general rule.
>    
> Not at work. You're on private property with other people and
> those other people have rights.

  So, whose rights have precedence?  The write of an individual to read/look
at whatever they like (like Plaboy/Girl, Mein Kampf, the Koran, etc.), or
the individual(s) "bothered" by the presence of the "offensive" material?
So long as it isn't on "company time", of course...


semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mike Levine: Triumph 		               *
********************************************************************************
Xref: sparky soc.women:19263 alt.feminism:4125 soc.men:19029
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: Get a CLUE, a LARGE CLUE
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 04:45:19 GMT

rivero@mdcbbs.com (Michael Rivero) writes:
dace@shrike.und.ac.za (Roy Dace) writes:
>|> rivero@mdcbbs.com (Michael Rivero) writes:

>|> :   Since when is it racist to ADMIRE someone's strengths?

>|> Where I come from (and yes, it's quite easy to spot racism here), making
>|> unqualified generalisations about members of a specific race is called
>|> *RACISM* and is frowned upon in civilised areas! 
 
>  Where I come from, that prohibition only applied to negative 
>generalizations.  Why is it frowned on if the generalization 
>is a positive one?

I'm fairly sure that statements like "You black people sure do 
know how to dance!" are considered racist in many places.  Where
do you come from?

Anyway, it's for the exact reason that Roy wrote. 

rini

Newsgroups: soc.women
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Am I "exploiting" this woman?
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 21:10:15 GMT

In article <Bx9t58.MGI@world.std.com> marty@world.std.com
(Marty M HaleEvans) writes:
>kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts) writes:

>>I maintain that it is a valid political protest.  For whatever reason, the
>>issue of calenders and posters is important to me.  I can't convincingly
>>articulate why I feel strongly about this issue, but I still do.
>
>Could it be because you feel that your right to  do whatever you damn please
>is more important to you than considering the slightest pain you cause to 
>anyone around you?

Protecting my rights is more important than considering your feelings.
Exercising my rights may not be.

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Newsgroups: soc.women,talk.politics.theory,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.classics
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Subject: Re: Was Clinton's victory America's message to the Anti-Choice?
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 01:44:10 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.183726.12720@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>
>>>I'm curious to hear what you all think about the issue of abortion and its
>>>effects on the presidency and other implications such as the dangling
>>>supreme court.
>>
>>Clinton will sign the Freedom of Choice Act (at least, he said he would),
>>and will use R v. W  as a litmus for Supreme Court candidates (at least,
>>he said he would).
>>
>>Don't know how many justices he'll get to appoint in his 4 years, though...
>
>
>Not a flame, just my $.02, the justices already on the court were appointed
>for a lifetime term, so Clinton can't appoint any new people until one of
>them retires.

Unless you believe that post that tied him in with the Mafia.
Then he can just arrange a few "accidents" for justices with Uncle Louigi...

[For the humor-impaired, this post was meant as a joke.]
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: <ELLEN@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:    Did Dornan win?
Organization: Purdue University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 18:41:28 GMT

   Anyone in California like to fill me in on races there?  Did that right
wing nut Dornan win again?  How about Tom Huening?  Any other good news
besides Feinstein and Boxer?  Please reply direct, I don't have much time
so I don't read netnews on a regular basis.
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall)
Subject: Re: Am I "exploiting" this woman?
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 22:04:44 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.233304.14262@m.cs.uiuc.edu> carroll@cs.uiuc.edu (Alan M. Carroll) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.180123.28981@menudo.uh.edu>, HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
>> In <1992Nov5.153742.20271@cbnews.cb.att.com> lib@cbnews.cb.att.com writes:
>> > Not at work. You're on private property with other people and
>> > those other people have rights.
>>   So, whose rights have precedence? 
>
>The better question is, whose private property? I doubt that the
>"other people" mentioned are the owners of the property. If I invite
>Lib and Janice over to my house (private property), I don't see how
>Janice's rights can control what Lib gets to read on my couch.

 Janice wouldn't want to control anything in your house.  If I become
 uncomfortable, I can choose to leave.  But, I do need my job.  I do
 have to go to work.  I have to interact with co-workers.  If I want
 food and shelter, my choices become a little more limited.

>
>With that said, I also have to support Janice's right to be upset and
>think less of people because of it. That's her priviledge. It is not
>her place to legally prevent others from reading such things - it is
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>her place to dislike such things and the people who read them.
>

 WAIT A MINUTE!  I was very explicit in my post that I would *NEVER*
 propose legislation regarding what reading material and wall hangings
 people had at work.  You are implying that I did.  I only spoke about
 people voluntarily not bringing this stuff to work out of consideration
 for their co-workers.

 For the record, I did not even say I thought less of men for it.  I said
 I was uncomfortable around them and the sexaully explicit material.

>-- 
>Alan M. Carroll          "Weren't there yams involved, too?" - J. Ockerbloom
>Epoch Development Team   
>Urbana Il.               "I hate shopping with the reality-impaired" - Susan

   
 Janice Kendall    kendall@adobe.com    ...!{decwrl|sun}!adobe!kendall

      Don't Panic!  Clinton will be our *42*nd President.
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Sad Day for Liberty
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 07:26:29 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.161941.12330@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> jrmo@volta.att.com (J.R.Moore) writes:
>
>But we have seen that laws favoring one group over another has sparked
>hatred and violence.  Contrary to PC thinking, being as member of a group
>such as white male, does not entitle that person to a life of luxury.  While
>those who have enjoyed the most success in our country are white males, most
>white males are not very successful.  Being lumped into a group, white male
>Catholic straight etc., has shown me how terrible classifying people by
>external charactersitics is.  All people should be judged by the content
>of their character and not the color of their skin or any other group you
>can lump them into.  Seriously, real serious, any new laws favoring gay
>to straight by giving gays AA status will not curb hate violence, only
>amplify it.

For god's sake, Moore, where are the laws giving queers AA status?
Laws that add sexual orientation to the already existing laws that
protect people from discrimination in jobs, housing, schooling, based
on color, religion, national origin, sex, ethnic origin, are all that
we're asking for!  You choose your religion and you're protected
against discrimination on that basis, why should sexual orientation be
any different (although I don't think it's a choice,  but if it is,
it's on par with religion).

In fact, since it's sexual orientation, that means that straights are
protected too if they're discriminated against for being hetero.

  Homosexual rights supporters would be better served by trying
>to gain family status for any people committed to living as a family unit.
>Favorable tax treatment, inclusion on insurance, etc.  I think the neutrality
>of such legislation, to allow individuals determine the scope of their family
>by consensual, legal agreement, not necessarily marriage, would better serve
>homosexuals, but also single parent homes, siblings living together, older 
>children living with parents, etc.

I agree with that, but what good does it do to define your lover,
her/his kids, and yourself as a family when you lose a job when your
employer finds out you're queer?

Newsgroups: soc.women
From: teri@sdd.hp.com (Teri Tracey)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Self Appreciation (was: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Date: 11 Nov 1992 17:58:10 -0800
Organization: Hell's Little Breakfast Nook
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: hp-sdd.sdd.hp.com

schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz) writes:
>
>Let's see....how about, say, 50 independent, controlled
>psychological studies over the last 20 or so years, 90%
>of which came to the conclusion that the psychological
>positive well-being of women is equal to or slightly
>greater than that of men?

It's an interesting point; I wonder if you can be disadvantaged but
yet resigned and perhaps satisfied to make the most of one's situation.
I'm not convinced yet.  I suppose the whole women's lib thing is just
an exercise in futility to you, then?  

I don't think oppression (we need a different word, it's much too
politically charged) = unhappiness, necessarily.  It's more brainwashing 
in a way, which can leave you feeling you're doing the right thing when 
you may not be. 

Teri
Newsgroups: soc.women,talk.politics.theory,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.classics
From: pol253b@monu1.cc.monash.edu.au (Ms D Alexander)
Subject: Yoder's idea of feminist philosophy (was Re: Plato's Views on Women)
Keywords: Plato, politics, women, feminism
Organization: Monash University, Australia.
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 10:07:39 GMT

In article <BxE6rn.IHx@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>
>>Brian, you haven't done the reading.  I suggest -- in the case
>>of feminism -- you peruse some of the philosophical works 
>>periodically listed in the soc.feminism newsgroup.  
>
>I have read plenty of that nonsense, and I still don't consider it a valid
>field of study.  The alt.astrology FAQ probably lists a lot of suggested books
>too, but I don't consider that to be a valid area of study either.

I think you're fibbing Mr Yoder, I don't think you have done the reading.
Your next paragraph is a dead giveaway.
>
>No.  I think that those who advocated such views were wrong.  Perhaps you 
>would like to continue to apply that reasoning and advocate "slave philosophy"
>and "serf philosophy".  What kinds of deep philosophical insights do you
>think one acquires by being a woman, a slave, or a serf?  

Feminist philosophy is not philosophy by women.  There have certainly been
plenty of female philosophers who were not feminists, and plenty of men who
were.  Before any of us bother with this discussion further, perhaps its time
you told us just what you think feminist philosophy is.

Furthermore, points of view expressed by various marginalised groups are just
as valid as those of mainstream philosophy.  Serf/slave philosophy is a nonsenseyou prattle off as a way of making claims that women have a valid and alternative viewpoint seem stupid.  Thankfully, too many people now are have woken up to
those kinds of tactics.

Dey.
Xref: sparky soc.women:19272 alt.abortion.inequity:5009 talk.abortion:47593 alt.feminism:4134 soc.men:19038
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Date: 11 Nov 1992 03:31:49 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

charleen@ADS.COM (Charleen Bunjiovianna) writes:

>>I jsut don't understand this.  Do youmean that your love for the
>>child is conditional on whether its DNA matches yours?

>I don't understand this either.  Do you mean you won't mind if the
>nurses switch babies on you in the hospital after you've given birth?

If I had raised a child for a number of years, and then one day received
a phone call "Gee, Ms Peri, we're very sorry, but little Timmy is really
not your child.  Little Jimmy here is."  Would I be so quick to trade
Timmy for Jimmy?  I don't know.  It would certainly be a heart-wrenching 
decision.

Would you be so quick to trade?

							--  Michal