HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Subject: Re: Discriminating Uni Faculties
Originator: hillyard@tiger.msc.cornell.edu
Reply-To: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell-Materials-Science-Center
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 09:53:06 GMT

From article <ednclark.724644212@kraken>, by ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark):
[...]
> 
> Worst of all professional chess players are split into gender groups for the
> playing of world championships although women should have a greater affinity
> for the game. But we all know it's not ladylike to play chess, after all,
> chess is a game of strategy and tactics involving LOGIC. What woman has
> logic? (in case you haven't noticed the dripping sarcasm :-)). What should
> be done is the removal of gender from chess competitions which will
> eventually, in the not so far distant future, produce a woman world chess
> champion (and probably never another male one from then on). Somehow I think
> it might then become less fashionable to play chess over a glass of sherry
> in a men's club (tee hee).

Chess is typically divided into the open division, and then the women's 
division--the best women do play in the open against the men.  I suppose
its posible that women have an advantage, but as of now the vast majority
of the masters are men, and its not because the women are somehow shut out
of the best competition.

Aside.  I'm curious why you think pattern recognition is such a big feature
in chess.  It seems to me that a computer would be infinitely superior in
recognizing board configurations.  The problem for the computer is that the
number of configurations are basically infinite; you can't just plug them
all in.  

Another by the way.  The next chess champion is likely to be a computer,
as of now the fastest computers (the successful computer strategy is
basically brute force; try every move and see which rated best) can beat all
but top players.  A computer becoming champion may be something that hurts
chess's popularity.

SEH
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center
Date: Sunday, 13 Dec 1992 01:43:22 EST
From: <RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: MATH, was (Re: Gender Differences - Sophie Germain)
 <1992Dec12.220005.22244@netcom.com> <92347.194139RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET>


-BTW, I am not trying to make any sort of supiority/inferiority argument,
-just adding another data point.
-
Of course, supiority might be the quality of being supine.  But being
one of those who `lie down, whenever I feel the desire to exercise, until
the desire goes away', I can compete there too!  :-)
-
-Rich
-
Rohit Parikh
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 21:08:10 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.184824.10383@rat.csc.calpoly.edu> dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Dave Gross) writes:
>	This is the second time I have written this article.  The first
>version was deemed "far too inflammatory" for soc.feminism -- probably an
>accurate criticism.  But if the article was inflammatory, that's only because
>it burns me when I see this sort of thing.  You know, the argument that men
>don't have any idea what it's like to live in constant fear of violence.
>
>     { NOTE:  This version was also deemed unsuitable for soc.feminism }

No surprise there. The REAL role of the moderator there is not to be a
flame-retardant, but rather a censor and "purifier". Once again, we
see the antithesis between "politically correct" feminism, and freedom
of speech. In fact, the entire "politically correct" movement can *only*
hope to prevail by silencing its opponents, because the position it
takes is absurd and inconsistent. 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.

-- 
  
        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)
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:6268 soc.women:21693 soc.men:21470
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: Sophie Germain - Gender Differences
From: <RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Saturday, 19 Dec 1992 17:52:06 EST
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

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

    I have said absolutely nothing to indicate that I am not in favour
of such programs.  If anyone who has read my postings thinks that, then they
have not read me right at all.

   My earliest action in favour of a women mathematician was in 1964 when
I argued in favour of the Panjab University math department hiring a woman.
When she became pregnant and asked for leave, I was asked if I was willing
to teach her classes.  However, this was teasing only and some other prov-
sion was made.

    If I have said that there may be a difference in the frequency
with which mathematical talent occurs in the two sexes, this does NOT
imply that ALL of the perceived difference is solely due to that.  A great
many factors enter.  Certainly culture is one of them.  For example, it
is known that school girls in Japan are better at Math than White males
in the US.  It follows that most likely the US is not making the best use
of mathematical ability in either sex.   However, nurturing the telented
is  a fairly low priority in the US educational system.

Rohit Parikh
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: holzman@d0gslb.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Subject: Re: women, sinks, and ads
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 22:21:57 GMT
X-Posted-From: d0gslb.fnal.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <lifq1mINNlol@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM>, zen@death.Sun.COM (d) writes:
> If you don't see it as an attempt to put down women, consider; you don't
> see ads like that with a submissive man licking someone's boots 

That all depends on what ads you're looking at... :-)

Kinkily yours...

-- 
Daniel B. Holzman                    | Eight Words the Witch's Rede Fufill:
HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET                  | An It Harm None, Do What You Will
HOLZMAN@FNALC.FNAL.GOV.INTERNET      |
                                     | All Acts of Love and Pleasure are
Love doesn't subtract,               | Her Rituals
   it multiplies    - Heinlein       |
                                     | Speak the Word.
Disclaimer:  Fermilab's far too large to have an opinion, let alone mine.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell)
Subject: Re: Keep Scratching
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 21:10:44 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.182832.9242@kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca> HGERBER@vm.ucs.UAlberta.CA (Hjalmar) writes:
>HGERBER@vm.ucs.UAlberta.CA (Hjalmar) writes:
>
>>> I don't know what "feminists" think.  I try to understand what individuals
>>> who claim that they are adherents of feminism, are saying...
>
>> Wow -- are you saying that (adherents of feminism) != (feminists) ?
>
>> rini
>> -scratching head....
>
> The collective "men" does not exist in nature or in fact.  "Men" is a
> form of shorthand for "not-necessarilly-related individuals who happen
> to share a secondary characteristic of being male".  It exists only in
> the minds of people. "Men" does not have adherents - people who joined
> with the conscious purpose of being "men". What is the purpose of "men"?
>
> I believe that the collective "feminists" does NOT exist, except in the
> minds of people.  There are INDIVIDUALS who adhere to the (quite varied)
> belief systems that are collected under the banner "feminism", but such
> adherence is far from having a common, standard purpose of BEING "femi-
> nist".  What is the purpose of "feminists"?
>
> On the other hand, the NOW is definitely a group.  It exists - independent
> of whether someone imagines it or not.  It (supposedly) has a common
> purpose.  Most, if not all NOW members are adherents of feminism, but
> not all adherents of feminism are NOW members.  Subsets...etc.
>
> The fact that I subscribe to SOME, definitely NOT ALL, of the ideas that
> is claimed to be "feminist", does not make me an adherent of feminism. It
> makes me an individual who subscribes to some ideas.  Please quit trying
> to pin a lable on me.  Please quit trying tell me how I think or what I
> should think and do - simply because I have the secondary characteristic
> of "male".  Please quit telling me that I should feel guilty because of
> what some other individual who shares a secondary characteristic with me
> had done.  I am unique.  I am an individual.  I am responsibly for MY
> behaviour - regardless of my secondary characteristics.
>
> Adolf Hitler adhered (mostly) to a vegetarian diet.  Does this make
> others who, for whatever reason do not eat meat, co-conspirators in
> what transpired under Hitler's regime?
>
> Keep scratching, rini.:-)
>
>Hjalmar
>-------

I hope this doesnt create another tangent, if so I'm sorry.  Hitler wasnt
a vegetarian.  He ate sausage, pork etc.  The mostly British biograpers
labeled him so since he eschewed beef.  Similar to how some people call
themselves vegetarians these days even if they eat chicken or fish.

Just FYI:)

Steve

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Back Again To (Un)Father
Keywords: Two Legs Good, Three Legs Bad...
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 15:52:25 GMT

In article <1go6otINN3n7@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>What equivalent decisions would that be?

What are you talking about?

 
>                                                --  Michal
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Of course there's no reason!  


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine)
Subject: Re: Football: Robert Sheaffer's Central Metaphor?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 20:04:16 GMT

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

>sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:

>>In article <BzH3z2.40v@news.cso.uiuc.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
>>>sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>>>
>>>>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."

>>So, I guess your argument is that women and blacks are too immature
>>to know 'what's best for them.' If left to themselves, they might
>>do something unwise, like children. And so it's necessary for 
>>wise persons like yourself, who have their own best interests at
>>heart, to step in and prevent women and blacks from acting unwisely.

>>Can you say "patronizing"?

>>        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com

>Let me ask you a question: Do you wish racist portrayals were like those
>of Rochester were back on TV? If they were, would you watch them
>and enjoy them? Would you listen to commercials for such programs?

>I suspect (and hope) the answer is no. Then you are voting with
>your remote control, in the only way I am asking people to
>vote against bimbo images -- that is, economically, not legally.

>Another question: Do you think Rochester's wealth made the racist images
>he portrayed morally (not legally) acceptable?

>A final observation: I *do* think football degrades men. Much, much
>more than women... 

One more comment. I am generally not in favor of censoring things. In
particular, I am not in favor of censoring the net; and in particular,
on the net, I am not in favor of censoring Mr. Sheaffer. 

I don't think he is aware, that he is as good an argument for
feminism, as Teddy Kennedy is for the Republican Party! Keep on,
Robert! 
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Proposal for reorganization of gender-issue groups
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 17:42:46 GMT

In article <BzB2vL.IuC@newcastle.ac.uk> Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
>forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu (Eric Forbis ) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec11.201041.608057@zeus.calpoly.edu> dgross@zeus.calpoly.edu (Dave Gross) writes:
>
>>>	soc.manumission (moderated)
>>>
>>>	Analogous to soc.feminism, this would be a moderated group for
>>>posting news and thoughtful analysis of men's issues.  Followups
>>>regularly set to soc.men, alt.dads-rights or soc.feminism.d.  I forsee this
>>>group as one of fairly low traffic.
>
>Uh, why "manumission", as analogous to feminism?  Is the idea
>that feminism is associated with liberation really that accepted
>nowadays?
>
>>>	soc.men
>>>
>>>	Posters would encourage a man-friendly atmosphere and refer
>>>debates and flames and acrimonious discussion of feminism to
>>>soc.feminism.d or alt.flame.
>
>>And this is the only change I disagree with. Feminism directly impacts men
>>today, and usually in a negative manner.
>
>Hee hee.  Quite a peculiar viewpoint; but to each their own.

Are you arguing that feminism does not directly impact men today? Or
just that it is not "usually in a negative manner"?

In neither case does it seem "peculiar". 
 
>>Criticizing feminism (radical,
>>academic, whatever) is thus an integral function of the men's movement,
>>and telling men to take their criticisms of an ideology that vilifies them
>>to that enemy's camp.... ugh, simply unconscionable.
>
>I would have thought the men's movement would be more interested in
>doing positive things, than simply reacting negatively to other
>viewpoints.  

Is not the removal of negative influences a positive thing? 

>              Certainly the masculists I know don't see their agenda
>as conflicting with that of feminists (except the radical masculists,
>who I assume are as representative as radical feminists).

Are they as influential as Dworkin, MacKinnon, and the editors of major
magaiznes? That is, do we have a 'power imbalance'?  :^)

>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk      Computing Lab, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Discord, the Goddess of the Net, was developing a taste for blood sacrifice.


Rich

payner@netcom.com
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Low Income Women & Obesity
Date: 14 Dec 1992 23:14:04 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

jean@cs.cornell.edu (Jean M. Petrosino) writes:

>Several other people on the net have brought up interesting and relevant issues
>surrounding diet and exercise like morale ( i.e. self-image), and cost of 
>exercize....
>I would love
>to be exercizing on a regular basis, but I can't afford a membership to a gym
>(not even for one month), and exercizing outside during the winter is not very
>appealing (not to mention, even if I had the inclination to do such a thing, 
>maintaining said exercize would be next to impossible and quite unpleasant).

Not to mention that outdoor exercize can be quite dangerous -- and more
so for women than for men.  One seldom hears of male joggers being attacked
and raped.


-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: a thought on men and
X-To: MICHAL LEAH PERI
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:07:00 GMT

peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes...
MLP> jhh5@po.CWRU.Edu (Jennifer H. Hwang) writes:

MLP> >The Wet Heat method....
MLP> >has been used in India for over 20 years without substantial
MLP> >adverse side effects.

MLP> Given the population growth in India over the past 20 years,
MLP> I find this particular evidence less than compelling.

Not necessarily... It might be that only a *very small* number of men had
been using that method, and while it may have worked for *them*, it didn't
have enough of an effect to change the general population growth.

Still, I wouldn't use this method.  I imagine that it would be QUITE painful
not to mention dangerous (Imagine if you were to stick some sensitive part
of *your* body under extremely hot water for extended periods of time each day,
for a protracted period - wouldn't there be long-term structural damage or even
permanent scarring?).  Jennifer, can you answer this concern?  Thanks...

---
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 * As Zeus said to Narcissus, "Watch yourself!"
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center
Date: Saturday, 12 Dec 1992 14:04:44 EST
From: <RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Women in Mathematics: One Final Thought
 <1992Dec11.043431.4423@midway.uchicago.edu> <1992Dec11.163114.4119@panix.com>
 <1992Dec11.213944.1926@midway.uchicago.edu>

-
-Could be, could be.  But as I read Sheaffer, he said that lack of
-aggressiveness was naturally linked to underrepresentation in
-influential positions in the economy.  While this aggression
-based arguments seems natural when applied to women, it looks a
-little weird when applied to "smart boys who study hard."  Kinda
-makes the univariate aggression model look bad, IMO.
-
-I'm just looking for consistency instead of ad hoc explanations.
-
-rini

Actually, there IS more consistency than Rini thinks.  There is a story
about a shy mathematician in Prague (?) whom Paul Erdos and another
mathematician went to see.  After knocking, the door opened and the
mathematician in question peeped through the half open door.  "I wonder
if you could come back another day?", said he, and added  "and to visit
another person?".  What the heck, Wittgenstein INHERITED a large
fortune from his father and gave it all away.  Since he never did enter
the busines world, I don't KNOW how he would have done, but not too well,
I would wager!

Rohit Parikh
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women,soc.men
From: sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell)
Subject: Why Poor Women Are Fat
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 00:53:32 GMT

a
I dont know if these ideas have come up yet in this debate, so please 
forgive if I repeat myself.  

Why Are Poor Women Fat/Out Of Shape?

1.  Think of how you feel after sitting in an office for 9-11 hours.
    Are you jumping your way to the gym at the end of the day?  I've
    been an exercise buff since I was 14 and some days I drag myself
    down to the gym.  I wonder if I would have made it all if I had
    to work 2(or more) jobs as some poor people do.  I wont mention
    family responsibilities etc etc.

2. Ever look at the prices of private gyms?  Even the YMCA/YWCA is
   EXPENSIVE for someone on a tight budget these days.  Running shoes
   are no bargain either and few people are built to use jogging as
   an exercise.  Jump rope is worse.  Try exercise walking in a poor
   neibhorhood,  SAFELY.








































:
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B

2.   Ever look at the prices o
A

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Violence
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 17:18:03 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.134838.27623@cs.cornell.edu> jean@cs.cornell.edu (Jean M. Petrosino) writes:
>I was thinking about this net last night and all the arguments about violence 
>that have been flying around.  Many men have been arguing here that men are as
>much victims of violence as women.  Okay, I'll give you that one.  

How kind of you.

>                                                                   But I ask
>you, since women commit very little crime in general, who do you think is 
>committing the majoritiy of violent acts?  

The topic has been violence, not crime, and especially domestic violence.

>                                            I think the men here have to stop
>directing their anger at feminists who call attention to violence issues, and
>re-direct their anger at the men who are committing these violent acts.

Yes, when women are angry, their anger is valid. But when men voice their
anger, they are misdirected. This explains a lot.


Rich

payner@netcom.com
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: a thought on men and birth control
Date: 11 Dec 1992 22:22:43 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

>and also ... anal sex.
>	A lot of homophobes snicker over gay men performing this last
>act, but the same strictures don't seem to be applied to the
>heterosexual version of this act.

Just don't get caught doing it if you're in the military!

							--  Michal
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell)
Subject: Re: CALLING ALL WOMEN..WHERE ARE YOU?
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 19:18:11 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.024835.29367@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.192430.25486@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>  (It's pretty clear that my 
>>unnatural heterosexual impulse came about from these experiences...
>
>I wouldn't mind heterosexuals so much if you all just didn't flaunt it
>so.  I mean, what you do in the privacy of your own homes is your
>business, but why do the rest of us have to be exposed to your rampant
>heterosexuality?  If you all would just learn to be discreet... 
>

You are just being a heterophobe.  You are afraid of the your own innate
buried heterosexual side so you bash those who irritate your fears!
*chuckle*

SFJR

Xref: sparky alt.feminism:6233 soc.men:21402 soc.women:21647
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Date: 18 Dec 1992 21:52:43 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

dgross@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu (Dave Gross) writes:

>	"We men" are surrounded by violence from our circumcision in infancy
>(no anaesthesia, thank you) to being bullied in elementary school; from trying
>out for the football team in high school to registering for the draft; from
>being several times more likely than our sisters to be murdered to watching
>boxing on television; from visiting Arlington National Cemetery to running our
>fingers along the Vietnam War Memorial.

[additional examples deleted]

So this gives you the right to do violence unto others???

-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women