HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Women in Combat
Date: 11 Nov 92 23:05:14 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: redondo.sw.stratus.com

In article <1992Nov11.211426.24815@adobe.com>, kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall) writes:
> In article <1992Nov11.095500.9583@news.cs.indiana.edu> "Amy Young Leith" <alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu> writes:
> >In article <4221@novavax.UUCP> vaccaro@novavax.UUCP (N. Trafford Vaccaro) writes:
> >

[deleted]

> Anyway, my point is, I agree with the above that the forced separation
> allows for the uncivilized behavior of military men toward women.  My guess
> is that the military *wants* uncivilized brutes who will do their murderous 
> deeds without question...

Well, I agreed with you up to this point.  In point of fact, there is a real
problem with disobeying an order because you consider it morally wrong.
In a lot of cases, it is justified, but in others it isn't.  If nothing
else, no army could possibly function effectively if everyone had to sit
down and have a town meeting before doing anything.  I don't know of anyone
who has really solved this problem.  For the most part, it seems like the
recommendation is to go with your conscience, but to be prepared to face the
consequences if public opinion doesn't back you up.

I'm also somewhat curious what you meant by "murderous deeds".  Did you mean
"that massacre of those innocent civilians"?  Or do you consider any form of
armed conflict to be murderous?  Having grown up in the 3rd world, I have a
fairly good idea of the value of life in some (many? most?) parts of the world
and the contempt with which they view pacifism.  Actually, for that matter,
things aren't that different here.  I remember in grade school when someone
would beat me up, everyone kept telling me it was wrong to fight back and if
I would just ignore them, they'd leave me alone.  Funny, it just seemed to
make things worse.  And we all remember how much turning the other cheek did
for Chamberlain and Deladier.  Then again, maybe we don't. :(

>  Janice Kendall    kendall@adobe.com    ...!{decwrl|sun}!adobe!kendall
> 
>       Don't Panic!  Clinton will be our *42*nd President.

-- 

#include <std_disclaimer.h>

Dan S.
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: "Amy Young Leith" <alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Women in Combat
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 09:54:52 -0500

In article <4221@novavax.UUCP> vaccaro@novavax.UUCP (N. Trafford Vaccaro) writes:

>One thing that no one ever seems to mention, though. When a fire team
>or rifle squad is out in the field, teamwork is essential. It's hard
>enough having teamwork with all the the other petty fights and
>arguments and feuds, and peoples' lives are at stake, during
>peacetime too, when you're working with heavy or dangerous equipment.
>You want people to keep their minds on their job. Now what do
>you suppose is on a lot of 18 year old men's minds when they
>are sitting out in the field, bored, and haven't seen a female
>in weeks? I've seen what happens when several young men are
>trying to "date" the one woman that shows up at the enlisted club.
>They're at each other's throats. 
>
>Now you can yell at me.

I feel that our armed forces, of all places, should be a forerunner,
not the dregs of society, as most of it is (boy, am I going to get
flamed for that one... but I can't honestly believe anything else
after the majority of people I've seen who chose the military.  I did
not mean ALL, and most likely don't mean anyone who is intelligent
enough to be found on here...  So prove me wrong if you wish).  

Perhaps this attitude of being "girl hungry" after being at it for a
while comes because 1)these people view women as nothing more than
objects (surprise, surprise), and that would change if they were SHOWN
that yes, women are equal.  Not just toys for their enjoyment.  2)You
tend to respect those that you know personally more then just some
women who walks into a bar.  3)And you're going to LEARN to respect
them, if they are protecting your butt in battle.  

I do not feel that social contraptions such as sexism are valid
arguements of why women should not be in the military.  

amy


-- 
alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu for personal mail
			    All business mail to alyoung@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       I only speak for myself.  Anyone who thinks differently is a fool.

Newsgroups: soc.women
From: jrmo@volta.att.com (J.R.Moore)
Subject: Re: Sad Day for Liberty
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 15:38:22 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.075630.29930@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
...
>many people voted for it, the religious right intends to keep
>fighting, that anyone was actually evil enough to come up with Prop. 9
>in the first place.
>...
>>Sad that Americans have sent a clear message that they don't believe one
>>should have the right love whomever one desires. (and not suffer injury,
>>economic retribution or even death for that choice)
>...
>Yes.  But at least the Republicans with their "hate everyone except
>white fundamentalist heterosexuals" platform didn't win.
>
Please, grouping people into the "religious right" is about as fair as
grouping gays into the "gay community".  Sure there are gay activists
who have an agenda, and sure there are a number of people who want
to impose their ideas of morality on others.  But for the most part,
religious people who view homosexuality as immoral or unnatural do 
not seek to discriminate against them.  Since it is a moral issue
with these people it makes them uncomfortable to know that someone
working side-by-side with them is homosexual.  But asking people
to keep their homosexuality in the closet is apparently too much
to ask.  But I think the opposite side is not taken seriously.  It
is uncomfortable, it is scary, it is uncertain for many people.  It
offends their sensibilities.  These concerns are real.  I realize
that homosexual people are not evil, but I don't know for sure any
homosexuals, fortunately, those I must have come in contact with
sense my ill-ease.  I would change how I act toward someone, finding
something like that out.  I wouldn't be violent, but I would change.

What really scares me is this reverse hate, no burning crosses on blacks
or Jews lawns, but it's ok to tear pictures of the pope and desecrate
Christian symbols.  

I have a real disagreement with homosexuals.  I am not convinced that
homosexuality is like being left-handed.  I am not convinced that social
factors don't influence sexual preference.  I am not convinced that 
there is absolutely no choice in sexual preference.  And I admit, I 
don't even understand what sexual preference really means, (attraction
to same sex characteristics, same sex anatomy, particular sex acts,)
and why opposite sex people can't simulate such an attraction.  So
I guess I'm part of this religious right your talking about.  And I 
guess people I know who side with you on every other issue but still
think homosexuality is 'deviant' are also part of that religious right.

It used to be that being Christian meant being fed to the lions.  If
their is a law prohibiting feeding anyone to lions, it includes all,
religious right, and homosexuals.  Laws already protect people from
injury and death. 

Joe Moore
Newsgroups: soc.women,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men,misc.legal
From: auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer)
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Organization: Swarthmore College, PA
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 06:56:54 GMT

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.

-dave
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 16:02:15 GMT

In article <1dca07INNgcj@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>
>>1.  The father denies fatherhood and demands a paternity test.
>>If it's negative, he "wins."  If it's positive, he will have
>>severely reduced his chances for custody.  ("If you doubt your
>>child is yours *and* you want to escape your responsibilities,
>>then how can I expect you to be a good parent?" asks the judge.)
>
>I jsut don't understand this.  Do youmean that your love for the
>child is conditional on whether its DNA matches yours?


I hope you didn't mean it that way, but your question is one
of the most offensive ever posed to me.

Before my genetically-own children were born, I started out as 
stepfather to a 1-1/2 year old boy.

I've changed his diapers hundreds of times, sang to him, played
with him, put him to bed, kissed his boo-boos, fed him, taught him 
English and German, got up in the night for him -- all, hundreds of times
and for uncountable hours.

I love him every bit as much as my biological children.


On the other hand, I doubt I would just blindly pay $200,000 to
support any kid off the street.  Or just blindly adopt and raise him/her.  
Would DNA play a role?  Yes: if the child were biologically related to me,
I'd take him/her in right away.


Now, what does that have to do with my objection to:

"By all means, any husbands who may be tricked into raising children conceived
by another man, take the child in for genetic testing, ..."

This offhand remark isn't so simple as it sounds.

What if, as is often the case, a malicious mother prevents contact
with the father?  What if the husband has some doubt *before* the
birth or shortly thereafter?  Why would you want a man to dive into
a cuckolding without thinking and without any right to know?

Don't forget, he faces the choice of paying for 21 years, regardless
of genes.  Or of losing even a negligible opportunity to raise a child,
regardless of genes.  Why shouldn't he have enough information to
exercise his rights?  Does he have no right to base his decision
on what he feels, regardless of what *you* or I feel?

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: nissim@mary.fordham.edu (Leonard J. Nissim)
Subject: Re: Entry level salaries (was: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Organization: Fordham University
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 13:43:00 GMT
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Distribution: usa
X-Posted-From: mary.fordham.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <HOD.92Nov10155132@amazon.chem.columbia.edu>, 
hod@amazon.chem.columbia.edu (Hod Greeley) writes...

[post of G. Fitch, with which H. Greeley disagrees, deleted] 

>   nissim@mary.fordham.edu (Leonard J. Nissim) writes:
>   |Here are the *new* statistics (from the November 1992 issue of "Notices of 
>   | the American Mathematical Society"):
>   | 9-month academic salaries of people with new Ph.D.'s in mathematics:
>   | (`new' means granted during the 1991/92 academic year) 
>   | Median salary for men----$34,000  (interquartile range--31,000 to 36,000)
>   | Median salary for women--$34,900  (interquartile range--33,000 to 37,100)

[reasons he disagrees with G.F. deleted]

>There is a certain amount of fallacious reasoning in the nissim post,
>however.  Or rather, I should say, it's dangerous to draw any far
>reaching conclusions from such limited data. 

The size of the data set was 199 total; 149 men and 50 women.  That is quite 
small, and (worse) the AMS did not give the mean salaries.  

But it is the *entire universe* of new PhD's in Mathematics from U.S. univer-
sities in the 1991/92 academic year who found college or university jobs and 
reported same to the AMS.  It is not a sample--it is everyone.  Complain about 
the lack of new jobs for academic mathematicians, but that's all there was.  
So one can indeed draw conclusions about entry-level jobs in academic math 
from the data. 

The only fault one can find with such data is that those who report are a 
self-selected sample of those surveyed.  But this is true for both women and 
men.  

I would be interested to see similar data for chemists, if you have it, from
the American Chemical Society.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leonard J. Nissim  (nissim@mary.fordham.edu)   
Disclaimer:  "I speak only for myself."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Sad Day for Liberty
From: royce@mdcbbs.com (Royce D. Myers EDS/Unigraphics)
Date: 9 Nov 92 11:19:21 GMT
Organization: EDS Unigraphics, Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: royce

In article <1992Nov4.163113.27613@athena.cs.uga.edu>, carr@athena.cs.uga.edu writes:
>
> [several horrible laws voted in; several good laws fail]
> 
> This is a sad day. To all you Creton men out there who are going to reply
>
>....
> 
> - Sad in Georgia
> 

Dear Sad,

Why do you assume that the only people who support bias based on sexual
orientation were men?  I suppose the data points in my experience which
conflict with this are "the exceptions that prove the rule" :)).

Noble of you to be open minded about sexual orientation...will you be open
minded towards gender too?

-- 
Royce Myers			
royce@mdcbbs.com
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: parker@meibm4.cen.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: Sad Day for Liberty
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 19:15:58 GMT

sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:

>In article <1992Nov6.080709.1587@leland.Stanford.EDU>
>farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov4.183211.6015@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> jrmo@volta.att.com (J.R.Moore) writes:

>>I was attracted to the Libertarian Party until I realized that the
>>answer to every injustice was to tell the person being victimized,
>>"You don't have the right to be served if the owner doesn't want to
>>serve you.  What you do have the right to do is to found your own
>>business and then refuse to serve whoever you want."

>You can also start a "anti-discrimination society", and get other
>people to pledge that they won't discriminate and won't patronize
>businesses that do.  Since in our coercive democracy, presumably a
>majority of people oppose discrimination (else why would laws be
>passed against it?) you ought to be able to get a majority of people
>to cooperate with you.  Therefore, almost all discriminatory
>businesses will soon cease to exist, due to loss of over 50% of their
>potential clientel.

>>I talked several friends out of voting for Libertarians when I showed
>>them some postings on the net by Libertarians on the topic of "freedom
>>of association."  (Those posts are usually eye-opening, to say the
>>least.)

>Do you like the ability to choose your friends/dates/lovers
>arbitrarily, or would you prefer that the government implement an
>affirmative action program for you?

Ahhh, but a person's "sexual orientation" *does* have a bearing on personal
relationships.  His right to select his friends to exclude people he doesn't
like doesn't force them out of anything they "need" either.

Discrimination in the work place is quite different.  A person's "sexual
orientation" does *not* have a bearing on job performance.  (If you think it
does in particular situations, prove it!)  To exclude someone from being hired
or promoted on the basis of "sexual orientation" (or anything else that is not
truly related to qualifications and job performance) *does* force them out of
something they "need" (a job they are qualified for).  *THAT* (2 things) is
why *most* people feel that discrimination is "wrong".  Who you chose as
friends is not discrimination, and is not "wrong".

Affirmative Action is not a solution to discrimination either.  It attempts to
solve it by treating the symptom, not the cause.  By suggesting applying
quotas to friendships you show how rediculous it can be.  (Applying quotas to
something where there isn't necessarily any discrimination but is statistically
"off" the average.  I have virtually no black friends--there is one--though I
see many blacks on campus.  You can't realistically say I am discriminating,
though it may seem that way if you only look at numbers.)

>Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com

-Rob
From: tyger@netcom.com (Kristen Kohlbecker)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Was Clinton's victory America's message to the Anti-Choice?
Date: 5 Nov 92 19:40:06 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: The following is all GERG'S fault!

knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>
>It seems to me that one of the largest deciding factors, along with the
>economy, in pushing Clinton past the finish line was abortion. It seems
>that few voted 'for'  WClinton (or even 'for' Perot) but did this as a 
>vote *against* Bush.

I don't think nearly as many voted against *Bush* as voted against the 
Republican Party as a whole...let's face it, calling feminists lesbian 
man-haters and other goodies is not going to win one brownie points
outside of a rather small segment of society. Bush's main campaign failing
was to keep banging on the issue of trust long after people indicated
they could give a rip. 

>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.

Well, as I said in soc.singles earlier this week, I am in favor of some 
sort of controls over abortions. I definitely think it should be an option
for a woman, but on the other hand, I know a lot of women from my Alma Mater
and other places for whom this is their method of birth control. This makes 
me angry. Without getting into the Sanctity of Human Life issue, why should
I subsidise these women's birth control when I pinch pennies to pay for my
own? True, a free abortion from Planned Parenthood is de facto cheaper than
20$/month for the Pill or whatever condoms are going for these days, but this
just seems to me to be an inappropriate application of this procedure. Only
problem is, I question whether controls can be put in place that would not 
leave a great many loopholes by which people with legitimate reasons for an
abortion would not have that option available to them.

>David Knapp                                      

Tyger

PS: Since when is a Margin of 35 Million votes to 30 million votes a ROUT or
    a LANDSLIDE?

-- 
      Kristen Kohlbecker    And I would choose to be with you
      tyger@netcom.com      That's if the choice were mine to make   
                            But you can make decisions too
      A Tyger and a Lady    And you can have this heart to break 
Newsgroups: soc.women,talk.politics.theory,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.classics
From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: Plato's Views on Women
Keywords: Plato, politics, women, feminism
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 21:55:13 GMT

In article <1992Nov3.220658.27483@midway.uchicago.edu> koc5@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>As a newcomer to women's studies and to feminist philosophy I could also use 
>refernces to the most important recent work.  The University of Chicago,
>where I attend, seems unusually benighted in its lack of a women's studies
>department or even a women's studies bibliographer.

Since you are just getting started, I would think that the first order of
bussiness ought to be to seriously question whether "feminist philosophy"
is a valid field of study.  In my view, to place sex at such a 
fundamental position in one's way of thinking is simply absurd.
If you think that feminist philosophy is a valid area of though, do 
you also think that there ought to be such a thing as "black philosophy",
"bald philosophy", "poor philosophy", "male philosophy", or "blue-eyed
people who live in Hollywood philosophy"?  I don't.  Certainly one can
use philosophy to understand issues like race, sex, baldness, economics, and
one's unique characteristics, but the philosophical principles are universal,
not particular to certain kinds of people.

Feminist philosophy is in it's essence simplyexism, just as "black philosophy"
of the kind exemplified by people like Louis Farakahn is simply racism,
and (if it existed) "white male philosophy" would be both.  

--Brian


Newsgroups: soc.women
From: tim@ais.org (Tim Tyler)
Subject: Re: More Women Than Men Prefer to be Alone
Organization: UMCC
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 22:40:11 GMT

In article <1doj8oINNjkk@news.aero.org> foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
>Are there other studies similiar to this? What are the reasons for more
>women then men preferreing to be by themselves?
>
    Blatant sexism & other forms of discrimination!

>Richard Foy  Redondo Beach, CA         Standard Disclaimer
>
>


-- 
 Tim Tyler      Internet: tim@ais.org  MCI Mail: 442-5735 
P.O. Box 443    C$erve: 72571,1005  DDN: Tyler@Dockmaster.ncsc.mil
Ypsilanti MI    Packet: KA8VIR @KA8UNZ.#SEMI.MI.USA.NA
48197
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel)
Subject: Re: Self Appreciation (was: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 18:14:15 GMT

teri@sdd.hp.com (Teri Tracey) writes:

>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. 

Well, brainwashing is an even more politically charged word. To call
someone whose opinion one disagrees with "brainwashed" is to say, in
effect, "you poor dupe don't have the capacity to see how others have
exploited you, and your apparent happiness is empty and false, a product
of your ignorance, whereas I, an obviously higher form of consciousness,
can see your wretched condition for what it is".

You're right oppression != unhappiness. So, should one try for happiness,
or for lack of oppression? If the reduction of oppression results in
less happiness, how does one justify doing this? (ignoring, for the 
moment, the difficult issue of how to decide whether a particular social
structure qualifies as oppressive)

Regards,
       H. Biesel
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men