HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Damned Souls (was Re: Version Five)
Date: 10 Jan 93 05:27:33 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

#My gender is obvious from my name. My race is Caucasian, which would not
#grant me any affirmative action preference. 
# I do not list any fact on these forms which would give me affirmative
# action preference.

$If everybody would refuse to fill up affirmative action forms, then
$the bean counters will have a much harder time enforcing schools
$to accept more women and/or minorities.

$It is your choice if you want to cooperate with the system or not,
$but cooperating with the system, and being sure that you are/were/will
$be accepted on your own merits, seems to me a little contradictory.

In article <C0CA5t.MDH@news.cso.uiuc.edu> 
levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:

>I would like to hear more, on why you think those forms should
>not be filled out.

I don't want to help a system which is discriminatory, and 
passive resistance seems to me appropriate.  IMO if everybody
will refuse to fill up AA forms, the AA system will collapse.

>However, I don't see how my filling them out, in the way I do,
>would in any way change the way I'm evaluated. 

*Think* who competes against you in the graduate schools; have you 
seen too many blacks between the students?  The AA helps mostly 
women, and works against white and asian men.  You are obviously
on the winning side.

>(Of course, my gender would still be obvious in an interview...)

I know that a symphonic orchestra (I think in Chicago) tried a double
blind test - every candidate played behind a screen and was rated by
people who did not know who played.  The results were even more
racist/sexist (by Politically Correct) criteria than usual...

>Lenore Levine 

Hillel                                        gazit@cs.duke.edu

"...13 of 17 valedictorians in Boston high schools last spring were immigrants
or children of immigrants." --  US. News & World Report, May 14, 1990
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Search for a missing topic. was(Re: Living in a State of Siege)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 20:14:44 GMT

In article <C0Ho8w.5HB@srgenprp.sr.hp.com> sam@sad.hp.com (Vicky Hansen) writes:
>Eric Pepke (pepke@dirac.scri.fsu.edu) wrote:
>: In article <C0C4L0.2EA@srgenprp.sr.hp.com> sam@sad.hp.com (Vicky Hansen) writes:
>: >I doubt if the majority of mass murderer's mothers deliberately raised their
>: >children to be violent.  I also question the fact that fathers seem to be
>: >out of this picture (especially since I suspect you are male).
>: 
>: This is actually a fairly important point.  Much of the violence amongst
>: young people is related to children growing up in homes without a father.
>: The boys especially become alienated because they don't have someone to
>: talk to about how to grow up into a man.
>: 
>: The fact that Rich is male, of course, has nothing to do with it.
>
>I disagree.  Rich's article blamed mothers for children's upbringing and
>did not blame fathers.  

Did you actaully read any of what I wrote? I did -not- blame mothers, 
but I did state that blaming is the PC thing to do. I also stated that
mothers are a factor here, they cannot totally blame men, or disclaim all
responsibility, as you tried to do in your post.

And I did not even talk about the fathers, they were simply not the topic.
How you read that as exonerating the fathers is beyond me. Both are a
factor (if both are present), and lack of either is a factor if one is
missing.

>                          I feel both parents have an obligation to raise
>the children.  I feel that men (including Rich) need to recognize the
>fact that they are also responsible.  

This was never denied (although you seem miffed that it was). But your post
basically stated that women were -not- responsible, and that we need to
stop blaming the mothers. The other extreme is also incorrect and indefensible. 

Note that the only ones who get to make family decisions are the women, this
is a situation guarenteed to cause maximum harmony, expecially when the
father is not present, and does not wish children. Another issue is the
obligation to be a parent, without choice of any say in the issue.

>                                          Some of those homes without fathers
>are due to the fact that the men abondonded the family so if the assumption is
>that single mother households are the problem, it is the father's fault, not
>the mother's (I happen to disagree with the assumption).

You assume it is so, and it is not. May I suggest that it is very bad form
to extrapolate from what is -not- stated and discussed. The results seem
to be an expression of the fears and prejudices of the one doing the
extrapolating.


Rich

payner@netcom.com



Xref: sparky alt.feminism:7073 soc.women:22552
From: sam@sad.hp.com (Vicky Hansen)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women
Subject: Re: Feminism is a RELIGION! (eureka!)
Date: 12 Jan 93 16:55:48 GMT
Followup-To: alt.feminism,soc.women
Organization: HP Sonoma County (SRSD/MWTD/MID)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL7]

Lenore Levine (levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu) wrote:
: About inborn differences between men and women.
: I suspect that there *are* some differences statistically. However,
: I've noticed that most character traits and distributions of
: abilities are found in significant numbers in both men
: and women, even if the proportions differ.
: 
: I also note that in my family, among four full brothers and
: sisters (no parthenogenesis, no milkman) the biggest character
: dichotomy is between the left and right handers; not between
: my brother and the three sisters. 

Similar story for my family (in birth order):
  Sex        male(dad) female(mom) male      female      male      female
  training   engineer  phys ed     artist    engineer    mechanic  finance
  hobby      cooking   skiing      cooking   sewing      horses    softball
	                ^           ^
			^           state champion at the fair one year
			^
                        won a NASTAR gold medal on her 65th birthday

Coming from that family, I find stereotypes amusing.  My spacial 
sense and math abilities are unusual for a woman and riding my motorcycle
to class got some looks (especially when I was far into my pregnancy) --
so what?  Variety is the spice of life.  It does not reduce my feminity. 
My brother is 6'3" and built like a lumber jack so I assume noone hassles
him over his cooking or art work even if they are narrow minded enough to
think those are feminine pursuits.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine)
Subject: Re: AA-related ramblings
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 16:26:51 GMT

jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:

(Various thoughtful and intelligent comments on affirmative action.)

>Think maybe NOW we can all agree that it (affirmative action) is wrong?

>-jen

I'm glad you wrote what you did. I was getting flamed a lot on
this group, because I said *some* kinds of affirmative action, and
*some* ways of taking a person's background into account, in making
hiring and admitting decisions, were OK. (This flaming was amusing
but it was taking up too much of my time.)

I do agree that the concept of affirmative action has been inordinately
abused. I felt in good conscience compelled to discuss this subject,
and I'm glad someone else brought it up.

You know what they do, in practice, if they want to implement
affirmative action? They don't hire the best man for the job,
they don't hire the best woman for the job. They hire a smiley,
noncontroversial woman whose picture will look good in the
company newspaper. End result: women think they were discriminated
against, men think they were discriminated against, either the 
woman they hire is the backstabbing yuppie horror they thought
she was, and she ends up giving her quota of bad energy to the
organization -- or she's not, and wastes a few years in a job
where no one takes her seriously!

Well, end of rant...

Keep on writing!

Lenore Levine
levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell)
Subject: RE: Feminism's Lesbian Leaders
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:01:38 GMT

From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
In article <1993Jan6.214042.26285@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>
>And on the subject of feminism, lesbianism, and man-hating, some
>feminists claim that it is heterosexual women who are the biggest
>man-haters of all, because who are the ones who have to live with men?

sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:

I don't doubt for a moment that many feminists do indeed claim this,
because it's absolutely zany. Implicit in the assertion is: "Man-hatred
is caused by having to spend time in the company of men, because men
are absolute shits . Hence, het women *must* hate them, from spending so
much time in that vile company. At least those of us who are *uncompromising*
feminists, we Lesbians, we few, we happy few, we band of sisters, don't
have to put up with men NEARLY so much as they do, so their man-hatred
must even exceed OURS!"  

sfjr@wam.umd.edu ( Steve Russell ) writes:

	I cant understand anyone who writes off an entire group, esp
	an entire sex.  I have noticed that men as well as women do
	get disatisfied with some general traits THEY attribute to
	the opposite sex as a whole.  I dont think think this comes
	up to the level of hatred for most.

	I have heard this "het women hate men more etc" comment about
	3 times before.  Each time was from a lesbian who did hate men.
	These two women I know ( unfortunately ) were pretty outnumbered
	by the lesbians I know who dont have a problem with men, and with
	the men/women I know who love the opposite sex despite some general
	traits they dont like.  Take this ancedotal point for what it is
	worth.

	In saying het women have more reason to hate men because they are
	around them more, does implicitly assume there are odious traits
	in men in general to be exposed to or not exposed to.  Women and
	feminists are human, hence they are not immune from making 
	generalizations about groups of people, ie sterotyping/bigotry.
	
SFJR
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:6891 soc.men:22307 soc.women:22265
From: pepke@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Date: 7 Jan 93 00:03:33 GMT
Reply-To: pepke@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: Florida State University, but I don't speak for them

In article <C0C4L0.2EA@srgenprp.sr.hp.com> sam@sad.hp.com (Vicky Hansen) writes:
>I doubt if the majority of mass murderer's mothers deliberately raised their
>children to be violent.  I also question the fact that fathers seem to be
>out of this picture (especially since I suspect you are male).

This is actually a fairly important point.  Much of the violence amongst
young people is related to children growing up in homes without a father.
The boys especially become alienated because they don't have someone to
talk to about how to grow up into a man.

The fact that Rich is male, of course, has nothing to do with it.

-EMP
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: Feminism's Lesbian Leaders
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 22:01:28 GMT

In article <C0JsLB.IuG@news.cso.uiuc.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
>
>>	In saying het women have more reason to hate men because they are
>>	around them more, does implicitly assume there are odious traits
>>	in men in general to be exposed to or not exposed to. 
>
>...Not necessarily. I am a het woman, I don't hate men; however, I've
>known a few that did. And mostly these were women who had spent a
>good part of their lives assuming an artificial personality with
>men, for economic reasons.
>
>I think that if I had had to be a courtesan with women I would have
>ended up hating women; with men, hating men; and with green space
>aliens, hating them the most! There's nothing like faking orgasm (or
>even friendship) to make you hate the person you're doing it for!

So, implicit in *your* Cosmology is the notion that A) The only reason
women enter into long-term relationships with men is for money, that
there's no possibility they might REALLY fall for the guy; their orgasms
must be faked, etc.; and B), any kind of dependence upon a man is
degrading, horrid, unthinkable.

Which just brings us back to the old notion that today's feminism represents
the lament of those women who are themselves quite unsuited to the sex 
roles implicit in heterosexuality. They're attracted to men, yet on the
other hand, *infuriated* at the suggestion that they should act "more
feminine" than their man! So they really don't quite fit in anywhere, and
can't seem to find a role-model that works. Of course, the MAJORITY of
women, who are not infuriated by male sexual advances, and who do NOT
expect to earn more/advance higher/accomplish more than does their man,
somehow are untroubled by such notions. As are, we must again point out,
virtually all women OUTSIDE North America.





-- 
  
        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
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: Women DOCTORS
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 19:50:10 GMT

In article <oneil.726727956@cwis> oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil) writes:
>>	"Male physician arrogance"? 
>
>Yes.  Male physician arrogance. 

 This is a SEXIST statement! I am shocked! You cannot generalize about
 all men from the action of one, or a few. You need to take a course in
 sensitivity training to get a more realistic understanding of the
 opposite sex, who take offense at this sort of generalization.

>
>I only have my pelvics done at a local women's clinic now.  They only
>hire women to do the exams

 This is a BLATANT violation of the law, a clear-cut case of sex
 discrimination. If women reporters have a Constitutional right to 
 interview male football players in their locker rooms, then male
 physicians have the same right to be hired to perform pelvic exams.


 You, Ma'am, are a hypocrite.  

-- 
  
        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
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Blaming the Victim
X-To: JEAN PETROSINO
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 23:45:00 GMT

jean@cs.cornell.edu (Jean M. Petrosino) writes...
>JP> This is to Mr. J. Dunphy:
>                Just as the women you seem to keep involving yourself with,
> you are walking time-bomb looking for a place to happen.

>RP>If this had happened to a woman, what you are doing would be called -blaming
>   the victim-. And further, you are saying that things like this will happen
>   in the future, and they will also be his fault.

>This is a complete misinterpretation of my statement.  Pardon me for being so
>thoroughly disturbed at this man's complete and utter hatred of women.
                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This is a *very* strong accusation, Jean.  Are you prepared to back it up?


>It made
>me VERY uncomfortable since he made it quite clear that ALL WOMEN should pay
>for these few women's terrible deeds.

I don't believe that he ever said this.


>When someone publicly expresses hatred for all people of your kind, Mr. Payner,
> I hope you can respond in a less callous manner.

Well......  I hardly think that responding to a post which you considered
offensive, by posting a quote from a woman who is obviously raving, and
by declaring that women are biologically superior because of their period,
isn't exactly a charitable response, either.

This wasn't an insult...I merely point out that it might not be fair to
accuse someone of being callous, when you have done so yourself.

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

"Gravity: It's more than just a fragrance.  It's the LAW!"
   - Will Steeves, President, GOiDS "R" We, Inc.

 * SLMR 2.1a * Gene Police: "Hey YOU! Get out of this pool."
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: Re: AA-related ramblings
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 15:45:01 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: mydog in exile

jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
| ...
| AA is at least teaching segments of the society that had otherwise
| never experienced discrimination based on gender what it's like. 
| Sauce for the gander, as it were.
| 
| Think maybe NOW we can all agree that it's wrong?

But almost no one thinks it's right or good.  The question 
is whether it's a worse evil than the evils it is supposed 
to cure or mitigate.  The teaching aspect seems peripheral,
by the way, since it focuses the resentment of the victim
on the law rather than on the underlying condition which
gave rise to the law.  For example, a white person who is 
done out of a desirable job because it had to be given to 
a black person resents black people and the affirmative
action law, rather than the racism which was the cause of
the law and the discrimination which was its pretext.

The clever thing would be to come up a cure for the
problems of discrimination which was neither quotizing
affirmative action nor handwaving.
-- 

 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 16:03:47 GMT

In article <C0C4L0.2EA@srgenprp.sr.hp.com> sam@sad.hp.com (Vicky Hansen) writes:
>Rich Payne (payner@netcom.com) wrote:
>: Perhaps if women took responsibility for raising
>: their children as non-violent there would be less.
>
>I doubt if the majority of mass murderer's mothers deliberately raised their
>children to be violent.  

I disagree. Most of the mass murderers who's life stories I have heard
have been severly abused as childern, often by both parents. 

>                       I also question the fact that fathers seem to be
>out of this picture (especially since I suspect you are male).

Out of the picture? How so? What situation do you envision? And yes, I
am male. Guess my alias (Rich) failed to hide my secret identity. :^)

>I am not a violent person and I raised my boys in a way that I hoped would
>limit any violent tendencies.  However, 
> 1) My ex husband gave them laser tag sets that teach them to shoot to kill

Laser tag teaches them to shoot to kill? I suspect that this is not
exactly the situation. But consider that a great number of video games
are shoot-em-up, and they reinforce just this kind of behavior. If this
were really a valid point, I suspect out current Nintendo generation
will be full of mass murderers, for just that reason.

> 2) Violence is on most TV shows, including cartoons aimed a children

This might be a problem if one uses the TV as a babysitter. Parents do
have control over what their childern watch.

> 3) Violence is so common at school that one of my boys stayed in the
>    classroom for a few months one year rather that go to recess and get
>    beat up

Cause or effect? I suspect the cause pre-dates either laser-tag or video
games. Which would rule them out as causes.

>Mothers are indeed a part of the environment but not as much of one as we
>would like to be.

I suspect that mother have far more influence than you expect. 


Rich

payner@netcom.com



Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: aldis@peg.pegasus.oz.au
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Date: 13 Jan 93 11:55 EST
Subject: Woman Opposes Femocrat in WA Poll
Nf-ID: #N:peg:609400001:000:2907
Nf-From: peg.UUCP!aldis    Jan 13 11:55:00 1993


This article has been reproduced for distribution on this network
with the kind permission of Australian Associated Press. 
Reproduction in any other form is subject to normal copyright
requirements. 

                         * * * * *

PREMIER FACES RAUNCHY OPPOSITION

PERTH, Jan 12 AAP _ West Australian Labor Premier Carmen
Lawrence is facing some raunchy opposition in her bid for
re-election.

Karen Zielinski, 38, who owns a topless Perth restaurant is
contesting Dr Lawrence's seat of Glendalough as an independent at
the February 6 poll.

Mrs Zielinski, a former Perth beauty queen, is also a director
of Raunchy Promotions which, among other things, provides strippers
for Perth pubs.

She today claimed Dr Lawrence was trying to shut down her
restaurant, Slic Chix, which is in the same street as the premier's
electoral office.

"I will not be bulldozed by a feminist politician," she said.
Mrs Zielinski said she would campaign on an election platform of
a fair go for small business.

She said although she and Dr Lawrence were close in age -- the
premier is 44 -- they were poles apart.

"As a student the premier was responsible for banning the Miss
University pageant," Mrs Zielinski said.

"I was a former Miss West Coast (1974) and represented WA in the
Miss Australia title."

Mrs Zielinksi said her restaurant was "unique" in WA and was an
upmarket establishment where diners were served by skimply clad and
topless girls.

Girls would also, on request, sit on the men's knees and feed
them desert, sometimes naked, in a VIP room. Strippers also performed there,
she said.

Mrs Zielinski said Slic Chix -- which she runs with her husband
Steve -- had been packed with accountants, lawyers and doctors
since it opened on December 1.

She said Raunchy Promotions was an entertainment agency handling
male and female dancers, strippers and revues.

"We were running a low-key business until Dr Lawrence started
making a big song and dance out of nothing," she said.
Dr Lawrence said today the Zielinski's restaurant was breaching
local government and state laws.

"I've indicated they are clearly in breach of local government
and state laws and they should conform with them," she said.

"I've also indicated my distate for the activities going on
there.

"The mothers of some of the people working there have contacted
my office and they are none too pleased with what their daughters
are being asked to do -- so I'm not alone in that."


                         * * * * *

Australian Associated Press (AAP) is a news wire service specialising in the
provision of general news articles for print, radio and television media. 
Address: GPO Box 3888, SYDNEY  2001, AUSTRALIA.  Phone: +61 2 236 8800.  Fax:
+61 2 236 8839.


Disclaimer:  I am not an employee or associate of Australian Associated Press. 
I just think they provide a reasonable news service.

Aldis Ozols
Sydney, Australia