HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel)
Subject: Re: Get a CLUE, a LARGE CLUE
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 21:01:01 GMT

farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:

>In article <1dgphuINNq77@shrike.und.ac.za> dace@shrike.und.ac.za (Roy Dace) writes:
>>
>>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! 

>Just as a note, many people don't consider this an accurate definition
>of racism.  Racism refers to an institutional action that puts power
>in the hands of white and fosters white privilege.  That's why you'll
>hear people saying that African Americans, Hispanics, Asian Americans,
>etc. can't be racist, since they don't have the power to be racist,
>although they can be prejudiced.

Oh, really? What's so magic about white skin? Do the institutional actions
of Bogusland, governed by a 90% majority of fuchsia people, not constitute
racism if they discriminate against non-fuchsia people?

Or are you perhaps claiming that only western societies governed by white
majorities engage in these reprehensible actions? The treatment of the
Japanese of foreigners, specifically of people of Korean extraction living
in Japan for generations, would seem to contradict this contention.

Regards,
       H. Biesel
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Self Appreciation (was: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Date: 12 Nov 92 15:15:32 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1dsdniINNef3@hp-sdd.sdd.hp.com> 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?  

Suppose that all the goals of womens lib were met tomorrow. Would
womans lib disappear?  I think we will have a different situation.
The attitudes and slogans will be so ingrained and propagandaized
that many will unquestionably believe then no matter what the situation
may be.
 
>I don't think oppression (we need a different word, it's much too
>politically charged) = unhappiness, necessarily.  

Opression may not only be "too politically charged", it may actually
be the wrong word. 

>                                                 It's more brainwashing 
>in a way, which can leave you feeling you're doing the right thing when 
>you may not be. 

Do you claim that there is some absolute right against which actions
can be measured? 
 
>Teri


Rich

payner@netcom.com
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: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 14:04:00 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 <1992Nov9.200044.29801@panix.com>, 
gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes...
[earlier post 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)
>| Note that women earn over $1.02 for each $1 earned per man.  
>| 

>"Experience" and "education" actually denote dimensions of
>status in the hierarchies typical of bourgeois institutions.
>Consequently, to note that persons equally advanced in these
>dimensions are equally compensated, regardless of gender,
>seems vacuously tautological.  The interesting question is
>how and whether status is achieved, which is what differs
>per gender, not how well it is compensated, which evidently
>does not.  

It is not tautological.  Not while some claim that women and men do 
the same work, and women receive $0.59 for each $1 earned by men. 
(Please note that I do not say that *you* so claimed, just that I have
seen it posted.) 

> 
>When Ed [Nilges] comes back he'll go into the reasons for your not
>observing this on your own.

Is he coming back??  I'll have to re-create a kill file.   

>-- 
> 
> )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
>( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leonard J. Nissim  (nissim@mary.fordham.edu)   
Disclaimer:  "I speak only for myself."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
From: colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten)
Subject: Re: Proof Spike Lee is WHITE
Followup-To: soc.men
Summary: Japanese in America as well
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 16:01:40 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.090540.3269@fys.ruu.nl>, johnston@fys.ruu.nl (Helen Johnston) writes:
> In article <1992Nov11.142226.1@mdcbbs.com> rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:
> >
> >  Within that part of the population who are the descendents of
> >slaves, there is a tendancy for greater strength because the southern
> >slave owners created an environment which bred for strength, and in which
> >the weaker members often did not survive to reproduce. It is morally 
> >offensive that such brutal methods were applied to human beings, but
> >it did happen. The modern day descendants of those slaves are, on
> >average, taller and stronger than the descendants of those Africans
> >who stayed Africans (i.e. avoided the slave hunters). Remember the documentary
> >where Alex Haley, the author of "Roots", finally visited the village
> >of his ancestors along the Gambia River? He wasn't just taller than his
> >relatives, he towered over them far more than the difference in medical
> >care alone could account for.
> >
> So what do you make of my friend of Japanese ancestry, born and bred in
> Australia? When she went back to Japan to visit her grandparents, she
> wasn't just taller than her relatives, she towered over them. Far more,
> you would doubtless say (were she black), than the difference in
> medical care alone could account for. She is 5'6"; her grandmother is
> about 4'10". She complained she couldn't turn around in her
> grandmother's kitchen! Yet I can assure you that no-one was breeding
> HER parents for height or strength.
> 
> I think you SERIOUSLY underestimate the effects of good nutrition.

Very much so.  I saw a exhibit of photos taken when Japanese
Americans were shipped to internment camps.  All those pictures
of 5 foot fathers and 6 1/2 foot sons.  The Japanese Americans
who served in the US army were as big as the caucasions.  One
article I read attributed it to the parents growing up on
rice and fish (and apparently not enough of it) and the children
growing up on an American diet of milk, beef and grains.

This entire discussion ignores other points as well - I know quite
a few small Black people (including one who was recently compared
to Spike Lee in appearence).

marc colten

Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex
From: psyctwo1@cc.newcastle.edu.au (PSYCTWO1)
Subject: Re: Emotional Cripples and Women in Combat
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 08:21:27 GMT

In article <1992Oct29.113336.28527@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
> Why is it hard to accept the notion of Women in COMBAT?

Not so much that, but I for one am sick of hearing references about 
"the boys and their toys" in regards to war, and then hearing that women
want to be able to fight as well.  To me it signifies that the girls also
want to play with the toys, and so lets ditch the sexist (IMHO) term "the
boys and their toys".

Fal...reply to c9110499@brolga.newcastle.edu.au


> 
> ciao
> drieux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Modern Day Problems:
> Sorry Sweatheart, But Just Because you were a BubbleHead, doesn't Count;
> 'boats' are not ships, and do not count for 'Ship Sinking.'
> If You have to ask, look for an Adult, PLEASE.
From: lmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Laurie Mann)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Naked Man on Campus
Date: 13 Nov 92 19:43:48 GMT
Reply-To: lmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: ansible.pubs.stratus.com

Janice Kendall writes
> I was wondering what reaction people have to the guy at UC-Berkeley
> (where else) who expresses himself by attending class naked.  (The
> officials called him in to discuss it and he even appeared at the
> meeting nude, so they cancelled the meeting and passed a special
> regulation against attending classes nude.  I thought there was a 
> law against exposing genitals publicly anyway.)

I thought so too...

> How many of you think nudist colonies are about sexuality?

I know they generally aren't.   I have mixed feelings about this.  On the one  
hand, I hate dress codes and the like.  I dress pretty casually.  On the other  
hand, I believe in wearing clothes most of the time.  I think the guy ought to  
be wearing at least modest amounts of clothing in public.  (Also, I'm under the  
impression it's usually cold and rainy in Berkeley---aside from making a point  
about free expression, is he nuts?)

> Another aspect (while thinking about a woman expressing herself in the
> same manner):  If he walks around nude and is raped by another man, 
> does he deserve it?  was it his fault?

No one deserves to be raped.  For any reason.

> Just causing trouble on Friday the 13th...

Not really, though it looks more look this should be in soc.men.
  
*  NeXT: lmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com * GEnie:  Laurie.Mann  *
*Bush, Quayle, Perot---We Said NO! * We Voted for CHANGE in '92!*
***** "Hollywood still doesn't get it." Dan Quayle, 9/21/92 *****
* "No Dan, YOU still don't get it."  American Voters, Fall 1992 *
***********    Gee, do you think he gets it now????   ***********
Xref: sparky soc.women:19350 soc.men:19103
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: Get a CLUE, a LARGE CLUE
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com (Michael Rivero)
Date: 11 Nov 92 09:01:55 PDT
Distribution: world
Organization: M&E (Division of EDS), Cypress CA

In article <1dgphuINNq77@shrike.und.ac.za>, 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?



<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com  "Middle-aged Mutant Ninja Animator" |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|     This is my last week at EDS (mdcbbs.com) and since I am planning   |
|    to run the animation shop as a full-time business (unless a higher  |
|    paying job comes along) I will be off the net for the near future.  |
|    I want to thank all the posters, my net-friends, and even my        |
|    net-enemies for having made this last year a most interesting and   |
|    colorful time!                                                      |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Newsgroups: soc.women
From: kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts)
Subject: Re: Am I "exploiting" this woman?
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 05:32:27 GMT

In <1992Nov7.190438.17365@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:

>In article <BxAx55.DE0@ccu.umanitoba.ca> kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts) writes:


>But what if the majority of the women you work say that calendars,
>posters, what-have-you of half naked women make them uncomfortable?
>What do you say, "Deal with it, bitch."?

Why is compromise so difficult for you to understand?  I would much rather
avoid fighting with the majority of my coworkers.  It seems easy enough to
resolve the conflict.  By the same token, should one women be able to totally
dominate all of her coworkers on these issues?


>I too am curious as to why people want sexually stimulating posters,
>calendars, etc. in their work environment.  I'm beginning to wonder if
>it's because men with wives, girlfriends, and/or children don't want
>to have these things in their homes, but want them in their work
>environment.  A case where these men don't want their wives, gfs,
>and/or children exposed to them, but don't mind that their coworkers are?

Am I the only person in the world who finds a sports illustrated calender no
more exciting than a lamborgini poster?  Can't a picture be attractive 
without being sexually stimulating?  Take a cold shower, you are definitely
over-sexed.


>>Or could it be that it be that the issue is a wee bit more complex than your
>>grade school analysis?

>Maybe.  Then again, you seem to insist on your right to have whatever
>you want in your work environment, regardless of how your coworkers
>feel.

Maybe my comment should apply to you also.  Why is the concept of compromise
and negotiation so mentally taxing for you?  Two people have a conflict.  They
discuss their positions and come to some kind of understanding.  Neither person
may be 100% satisfied, but neither has their wishes ignored.


>(And yes, it does generalize men.)  The point is, if women tell you
>that they don't like the calendars and posters in the workplace, why
>do you care so little that you berate them for saying that?

And if people don't feel they should have to work with homosexuals (or even
bisexuals), should we just accept that, or do we expect a better case to be
made?

Ken
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Am I "exploiting" this woman?
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 92 19:04:38 GMT

In article <BxAx55.DE0@ccu.umanitoba.ca> kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts) writes:
>In <Bx9t58.MGI@world.std.com> marty@world.std.com (Marty M HaleEvans) writes:
>>kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts) writes:
>>>How far should someone have to go to protect your hyper-sensivity?  It is
>>>enamel off of my teeth, because it is an unnecessary restriction.  I
>
>Now here is a knee that jumped real high.

I thought you were referring to _your_ comment before I read on.

>>That depends on how compassionately you style yourself as a human being.
>
>First, the concept that two intelligent people can come to a compromise seems
>to elude you.  Second, we have restrictions for reasons.  Is hyper-sensivity
>a good reason for adding more restrictions?  You also seem to think that
>courtesy is a one way street.

But what if the majority of the women you work say that calendars,
posters, what-have-you of half naked women make them uncomfortable?
What do you say, "Deal with it, bitch."?

>Since I don't participate in a sterile environment, personal decorations are
>acceptable, and probably encouraged.  You demonstrate a very narrow view
>of people, and poor management skills.  I would think that you would need a 
>little more information before you could guage the impact of any  given
>poster on the performance of an individual.

I too am curious as to why people want sexually stimulating posters,
calendars, etc. in their work environment.  I'm beginning to wonder if
it's because men with wives, girlfriends, and/or children don't want
to have these things in their homes, but want them in their work
environment.  A case where these men don't want their wives, gfs,
and/or children exposed to them, but don't mind that their coworkers are?

>>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?
>Or could it be that it be that the issue is a wee bit more complex than your
>grade school analysis?

Maybe.  Then again, you seem to insist on your right to have whatever
you want in your work environment, regardless of how your coworkers
feel.

This reminds me of something I once heard a woman say, "Men can
boycott grapes, lettuce, Coors beer, not buy GE products, but God
forbid women ask them not to put up posters of half naked women!"
(And yes, it does generalize men.)  The point is, if women tell you
that they don't like the calendars and posters in the workplace, why
do you care so little that you berate them for saying that?

Xref: sparky soc.women:19092 talk.abortion:47194 alt.feminism:3962 soc.men:18891 misc.legal:19676
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: soc.women,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Date: 8 Nov 92 17:09:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.1992Nov8.170944.8262
Distribution: na
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <forb0004.46.721185276@student.tc.umn.edu> forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu (Eric Forbis) writes:
>In article <1992Nov2.151244.2478@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>>| >From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
>>| [ a person's genes ]
>>|  But does he own them?  Probably not.  He owns his body
>>| >fluids (until he gives them away) but I don't know of any
>>| >law under which he can claim ownership of his particular
>>| >genome.  Genetic material _has_ been copyrighted, but only
>>| >when it was artificially produced.
>>
>>forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu (Eric Forbis) writes:
>>| I've heard this said many times, but haven't followed it. I _am_ my genome. 
>>| I don't own myself? I can scribble off a poem in seconds and my ownership 
>>| won't be doubted. I don't own me? If identity isn't self-ownership, then 
>>| what can ownership ever be based on?
>>
>>You produced the poem, but you didn't produce the genes.
>>And an identical twin could have the same genome, yet you
>>would not own one another.  The genome is (as far as we
>>know) just information, the specifications of how to
>[Material deleted]
>>
>>By the way, the same argument -- that the genome of an
>>individual is completely different from the genome of
>>either of its parents -- would seem to weigh against the
>>right of a father to be notified of his fatherhood, since
>>the genes would no longer be "his."
>>-- 
>>
>
>I deleted some of your interesting comments to bring two statements into 
>closer proximity: a) I didn't make my own genes, so I don't own them, 

So, I didn't make my car, but I -do- own it. 

>                                                                      and b) 
>because my genes differ from those of my parents, they don't own them either.
>Doesn't seem like _anyone_ with a valid interest owns me- is the gov't going 
>to come along and assert possesion?

[...]
 
>> )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
>>( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
>Eric Forbis      forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu

Rich

payner@netcom.com
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall)
Subject: Re: Am I "exploiting" this woman?
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 18:15:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.051820.21837@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>In article <BxErIq.E6L@news.cso.uiuc.edu> parker@meibm4.cen.uiuc.edu () writes:
>>When a member of what is sometimes called the "weaker" sex is surrounded by
>>calendars depicting scantily-clad women, she can get the impression that her
>>male coworkers don't take her seriously as a person and coworker, but only
>>think about her in terms of how she looks.  Whether or not that is true, it
>>makes (some) women uncomfortable with the work environment.  That can make it
>>harder for them to work smoothly and is "hostile".
>>
>>Companies have an interest in ensuring that their workers feel comfortable at
>>work and can work smoothly, and should have a policy against such displays.
>>(The other alternative is to kick out women who complain about it or whose
>>job performance suffers; and *that* is sexual discrimination and/or outright
>>harrassment.)
>
>Well, heck no, it isn't.  If those women aren't men (ahem) enough to
>take photos of half naked women on calendars, computers that have
>sound effects of orgasmic moans, and a few raunchy jokes, they should
>just go back to the kitchen.  
>

 Hmmm.  You aren't associated with Stanford's Medical School, are you?
   
 Janice Kendall    kendall@adobe.com    ...!{decwrl|sun}!adobe!kendall

      Don't Panic!  Clinton will be our *42*nd President.
Newsgroups: soc.women