HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cfaks@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Alice Sanders)
Subject: Re: getting fired after making sexual harrassment complaint - illegal?
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 04:52:58 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

In article <1992Nov12.170908.2711@mdcbbs.com> rivero@mdcbbs.com (Michael Rivero) writes:
>
>  That was the case a year ago. But there have been so many claims of sexual 
>thisnthat which have turned out to be total fabrications that the courts 
>will no longer accept 'likely'.  Here in Los Angeles, there was a round of
>layoffs in city government as part of the budget problem. Half those
>layoffs affected women. Suddenly, it seemed as if every one of these women had 
>been fired for not yeilding to the sexual advances of this or that
>city official (one of whom had died shortly before the alleged incident).
>
>  Needless to say, that episode quickly undermined the credability of all
>women making sexual abuse charges, at least within the LA court's 
>jurisdication.
>
>  One year ago, I posted an article urging caution in the application of
>less-than-truthful sexual charges. I predicetd that, while powerful 
>and effective in the short term, liberal use of false charges would eventually
>backlash and hurt the credability of all women, including legitimate victims.
>For my trouble I was accused of trying to defend rape and rapists
>(I was trying to defend NON-rapists) in this very newsgroup.
>
>  Your friend might very well have been the victim of sexual harassment.
>But as of right now, it appears she will have to pay the price for all the
>women who, like Catherine Comins, believed false sexual accusations were
>good for men, and thus turned rape into the most falsely reported crime
>in our society.                                              
>
>
>|> They also falsified her review
>|> records, to look like she had a bad review.  
>
>  Can you prove the falsification? Most revue processes I have been through
>provide a signed copy to the employee. If your friend has her signed
>and dated copy, and it does NOT match the one in the employee file
>you have a case. Otherwise, in accordance with U.S. laws, you must presume
>that her company is innocent of wrongdoing until proven otherwise 
>beyond a reasonable doubt.
>

Michael:  Thanks for your answer.  In this person's case, though, her real
problem , I believe, has nothing to do with whether there was actually
sexual harrassment.  It has to do with the fact that she was discriminated
against for making the complaint of sexual harrassment.  The sexual
harrassment was never really investigated.  SHE was investigated.  The
next day she was put under close scrutiny, which continued for 2 1/2
months, while they looked for a reason to fire her.  So there is no need
to prove any sexual harrassment in this case.  The wrongdoing of the
company was in harrassing her for three months starting with the day after
she made the complaint.  She can prove they did this.  And she can prove
damages.

Thanks again for your response.

ALice


Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Practise what you preach? (was:what is sexist?)
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 23:52:27 GMT

In article <MUFFY.92Nov17113118@anableps.berkeley.edu> muffy@anableps.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

)Third, (and you may not have realized this), there is absolutely no
)requirement on moderators of soc.feminism to be polite.

You should have stopped right here!

 to idiots in
)other newsgroups, only to be polite to idiots whose posts we receive for
)approval.


Newsgroups: soc.women
From: lje@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (lisa.j.elser)
Subject: Re: A basic question
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 22:18:51 GMT

In article <By0149.Cq9@unix.portal.com> mzank@shell.portal.com (matthew c zank) writes:

>of men turn women off? does anyone know?
Arranging a few strands of hair over the top of their head in order to



All of them.

Oh.  You were asking about STRAIGHT women?  Nevermind.

Lisa

Newsgroups: soc.women,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men,misc.legal
From: "Amy Young Leith" <alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Women in Combat
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 20:37:38 -0500

In article <1992Nov13.171853.14016@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:

>I doubt it, but maybe you can explain to all of us how male-->male rape
>is less evil than male-->female rape.  Inquiring minds would like to see
>you struggle with that one.
>
>While you are at it, maybe you can also explain the degree of evil
>associated with female-->male rape.  I bet, by your standards, it's the
>least evil, of the three.
>
>Sexist.

No, that was my mistake.  I dubbed it "lesser" because it happens less
often.  A rape is a rape is a rape, regardless of the sex of the
victim/perp, or how well they knew each other, or any other variable
you can throw in there.  And each incident is as horrible as any
other. 

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.

From: sam@hpsad.sad.hp.com (Vicky Hansen)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 20:28:54 GMT
Subject: Re: Entry level salaries (was: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Organization: HP Signal Analysis Division - Rohnert Park, CA
Newsgroups: soc.women

In soc.women, sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
  > Why should someone who is looking to hire a new Ph.D. in math care
  > about the sex of the person being hired?  (I know that they often do
  > care; I'm asking why they _should_.)

Because the federal affirmative action 'police' look at quotas and a female
salaried employee, especially if she is also a minority race, could mean the
difference between getting a contract and not.
Xref: sparky soc.women:19721 alt.feminism:4550 soc.men:19406
From: dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: what is sexist? (was Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Date: 16 Nov 92 22:39:24 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: redondo.sw.stratus.com

In article <MUFFY.92Nov16115724@remarque.berkeley.edu>, muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
> In article <1e3t92INNr0f@transfer.stratus.com> dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber) writes:
> > Muffy, if you really feel compelled to beat up on this bozo, why not take it to e-mail?
> 
> How about suggesting that to him, or to both of us?

Okay, consider it suggested.

> > I'm sure if a man posted such snide, condescending putdowns on soc.women, you'd have a cow. 
> 
> *LAUGH*...well, I never have cows, and I never read soc.women, so I'm
> sure that you're wrong.

Sigh.  I think it's pretty clear what I meant, and the point's no less valid because you
don't read soc.women.  I've seen more than a few postings on soc.men from women who are
peeved about men posting this kind of crap to "their" newsgroup.  And yes, I'm sure you
weren't one of them, although their objections have usually been on feminist grounds.
BTW, since you seem to be into hairsplitting, can I assume some significance in the fact
that you didn't disagree with my description of your postings?

> Muffy
> --
> 
> Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
> ~Weavers' fingers flying on the loom/patterns shift too fast to be
>  discerned/all these years of thinking/ended up like this/in front
>  of all this beauty/understanding nothing~ - Bruce Cockburn

-- 

#include <std_disclaimer.h>

Dan S.
From: xenon@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Cold Marriage
Date: 21 Nov 92 18:02:35 GMT
Article-I.D.: drycas.1992Nov21.230236.2634
Organization: Carnegie Mellon Computer Club

In article <By21JL.MA2@NeoSoft.com>, martink@NeoSoft.com (Martin Koistinen) writes:

<sad, horrible stuff about how his wife is turning cold, deleted>

> 	I  love  her  very much.  I want our relationship to work.  I
> want  us  to  have  a happy, successful marriage.  I vowed to her
> that  I'd  never  leave her and never cheat on her.  

Sounds to me like she has a fear of intimacy, and the more you try to get close
to her, the worse she is going to get.  Most people want their relationships to
work, but there is no way you can make it work unilaterally.  Insist that she
go with you to counseling.  If she refuses, then you had better just leave, 
because if you don't she is going to make your life a living hell.  It may seem
cold to say it, but what she is doing to you is emotional abuse, and as long as
you make excuses for her and try to accomodate it, the problem will only get
worse.
  
- xenon
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Sexist?  Dangerous?
Date: 16 Nov 92 21:00:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.1992Nov16.210017.11701
Organization: QQQCLC

In article <1992Nov16.185741.3181@asuvax.eas.asu.edu> ra@asuvax.eas.asu.edu (Starcap'n Ra) writes:
>barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>> 	Yes, but that's not what I'm disputing. What you _said_ was that
>> "compliments on appearance are rude".
>
>     You know Kenn, this may or may not surprise you,
>but I would pretty much go along with that.  For one
>thing, so-called etiquette experts such as Miss
>Manners do hold that it's rude, even though many
>people (particularly women) do it anyway. I would
>agree with Miss Manners, if for no other reason than
>it tends to make the recipient self-conscious.

	Time, place and manner, Huck. Appeals to Miss Manners (can
anyone email me the actual quote? I'm curious to know precisely what she
_did_ saying about compliments from strangers) look to me like attempts
to slough off responsibility for making a personal judgement.

>     Perhaps this is because most of us males who
>aren't famous musicians, or whatever, are so
>infrequently treated as sex objects that we enjoy
>it when it occasionally occurs.  I am, however, as
>sure as I can be (short of being one) that if I were
>a woman I would tell some man clueless enough to
>walk up to me as a total stranger and remark about
>my appearance to fuck off.

	Suppose it was at a costume party; Halloween, perhaps, or the
Hooker's Ball? Suppose it was at a single's event, where meeting
strangers is the name of the game? Or from a "safe" distance, like
across the street, and in an innocuous manner? Suppose "nice hat" is a
lead-in to asking where you bought it, because he'd like to get one just
like it?

	I think "appeals to the referee" in such trivial matters of
social etiquette are just a way of avoiding responsibility for making a
personal judgement of the situation, and further poison a social
atmosphere which is often pretty poisonous already. Tell me one needs to
exercise judgement and I'll agree with you; tell me a compliment that
was well-meant and well-received is a social sin by definition, and I
won't, no matter what Miss Manners says.

-  From the Crow's Nest  -                Kenn Barry
----------------------------------------------------------------
ELECTRIC AVENUE:    			barry@netcom.com
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
From: Diane
Subject: Re: Supermodels contribute to spiraling low self esteem?
Organization: University of Missouri
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 10:31:08 CST

In article <2919@devnull.mpd.tandem.com>
dwelch@mpd.tandem.com (Dan Welch) writes:
 
>I find it strange how many women rage against how women are only judged on
>their appearance, and then turn around and talk about their low self-esteem
>because they're not supermodel-beautiful.  This says to me:  "I think that
>my looks are very important to my worth, but I don't want *you* to think
>that."  You have to change your own attitude first.
 
I find it strange that you cannot see the correlation between how a
person is perceived by others and the subsequent impact on his/her
self-esteem. Their 'rage' is saying "I have to worry about my looks because
I am judged by them, but I resent the hell out of it". Having the 'right
attitude' is just another way of saying "get used to it".
 
BTW, since you asked in a previous post, I would not date a man who
had an Elle calendar in his office (I could care less what he has at home).
I would feel that 1) he is making an 'in-your-face' statement that shows
liitle concern for the feelings of others and 2) he, on some level, thinks
of women as objects, and 3) he might find a woman with a more 'realistic' body
type than Elle's to be unattractive (and who needs *that* rejection?).
I guess if he were also witty, warm, intelligent and sensitive, well, it
would just be *my* loss, right? I'd risk it...
 
Diane
 
ps I love your sig.
From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: She's back!
Date: 17 Nov 92 05:03:27 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Nov16.212644.19459@das.harvard.edu> stewart@geophysics.harvard.edu writes:

	You have been missed.  Welcome back.
-- 
Richard Harter: SMDS Inc.  Net address: rh@smds.com Phone: 508-369-7398 
US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742.    Fax: 508-369-8272
In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.
Xref: sparky soc.women:19888 alt.feminism:4688 soc.men:19545
From: muffy@anableps.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Practise what you preach? (was:what is sexist?)
Date: 17 Nov 92 14:25:50
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<MUFFY.92Nov17113118@anableps.berkeley.edu>
	<1ebp37INNdch@transfer.stratus.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: anableps.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: dswartz@sw.stratus.com's message of 17 Nov 92 21:44:07 GMT

In article <1ebp37INNdch@transfer.stratus.com> dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber) writes:
> Oh, you're not one of the avowed feminists who feel men shouldn't post to
> soc.women (unless they agree with feminist viewpoints), since soc.women is
> "womyn space"?

Exactly.

> The problem is that it isn't feasible for me to determine
> which set of feminist opinions you hold, other than those you have explictly
> stated.

Well, it seems to me that it would make more sense for you to not make
assumptions about my views based on *other* people's views.  I
understand, though, that it is much more convenient for you to do so,
since you can then accuse me (and other feminists, by the same method)
of being hypocritical when I do not adhere to SOMEONE ELSE's expressed
views.

> I suppose it was unreasonable of me to assume [...] My error.

Yup.

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
~Weavers' fingers flying on the loom/patterns shift too fast to be
 discerned/all these years of thinking/ended up like this/in front
 of all this beauty/understanding nothing~ - Bruce Cockburn
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father
X-To: CHARLEEN BUNJIOVIANNA
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 03:11:00 GMT

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

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

CB> My, what a sanguine attitude.


Ah!  I hadn't thought of that argument!

Good one, Charleen!

W.

P.S. : Estrogen Crazed Lustbunnies????  And *still* nobody has accused you of
having been brainwashed by... THE PATRIARCHY?!  :-)   Ack!

---
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 * Buuuurrrrrrrrnnnnnn   the witch!! Buurrrnn heerr!
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: Re: DNA testing
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 02:24:10 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

In article <1em0tpINNs2a@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
| payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
| 
| >In article <1992Nov21.024836.18702@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
| >>peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes...
| >>
| >>> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
| >>> >Uncertain parentage should be made certain.
| 
| >>MLP> How???
| 
| >>DNA testing...
| 
| >DNA testing is not yet reliable. It has been accepted in court,
| >but several false positives have happened in court cases, and I
| >suspect that it is no longer accepted as an absolute indicator
| >in court.
| 
| >In time I am sure it will become reliable. But not yet.
| 
| But it is likely to remain invasive and expensive (in particular,
| when performed on a foetus in utero).

I seems to me it would have to be invasive, unless we find
out how to go through alternate dimensions.  There are some
other questions here: Is this a proposal for compulsory testing?  
Suppose no one wanted to know who the father was?  Or suppose 
the father(s) didn't particularly want to know; would it still 
be required? Obtaining DNA from some of the possible fathers
might be a problem.
-- 

 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
From: slarsen@beethoven.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Self Appreciation (was: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Date: 18 Nov 92 22:00:43 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame

>In article <1992Nov18.161617.16132@news.nd.edu> slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:
>>In article <BxvvL0.FCI@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>>
>
>>her is that what really counts in the end is to be true to 
>>yourself.  Whether that self is a go along kind of gal or 
>>a raging rebel, I want that decision to be hers, not mine. 
>
>  My only caveat is that children and adolescents are very
>  impressionable.  *Somebody* or *something* will end up
>  raising them and shaping their values.  It will either
>  be the parent or it will be their peers, Madison Avenue,
>  TV, etc.
>
>  It's idealistic to think that a typical, let's say, 11
>  year old, can "make decisions" with the same confidence and 
>  self-authority as an adult.    This was one of the points
>  of the Northeastern University study on teenage violence a
>  couple of weeks ago that I mentioned:  they concluded that
>  kids today are "incompletely socialized" due to a "lack of
>  parenting"  (their terms).   They said parents are not a big
>  enough force and factor in the lives of their kids.
>
True enough.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not allowing my daughter 
to make life-altering decisions without my input.  It's just 
that I am real hesistant to make up rules and enforce them 
with the adage "Because I said so."  I am hoping that by 
engaging my daughter in dialog, featuring my values and 
examples of the values of others, that I am encouraging her 
to make reasonable decisions after gathering facts, views, 
or any other appropriate information that can relate to these 
decisions.  I'm not saying that this is an easy route to 
take, because often the decisions are not the ones I would make.
But the benefit (so far) is that she is willing to discuss 
things with me and if she makes a "bad" decision on her own, she 
will 'fess up to it.  Oh, and I try to keep her sphere of 
decision making appropriate to her age.  If I decide to go on 
vacation, she certainly is not allowed to decide to opt out, 
for instance.

As for other forces, I deal with those as they come up.  One 
game that we have played for years, though, is used when we 
watch TV:  "What are they trying to make you think?"  It is a 
fun game with little kids and commercials.  Now that she is 
older, we play it with full-length shows.  Often, when a new 
commercial airs, Iris will turn to me and say "They're trying 
to make me think my socks are yucky" or some such other 
observation she has made on her own.

Sue Larsen
slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Practise what you preach? (was:what is sexist?)
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 23:44:00 GMT

In article <1e8t4lINN95k@saffron.csv.warwick.ac.uk> maufd@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Mr J S Graley) writes:
)>No, dear. 
)>
)>Muffy
)>--
)
) A nice, harmless - endearing, even - little phrase inserted to add a little
)lightness and interest to the otherwise humdrum world of the newsgroup net.
)
)I don't think!
)
) I wonder if anyone can tell me which half of the population is 'permitted' to
)use this sort of insulting and condescending phrase.

May I recommend a solution?  

1)  Don't initiate the 'dear' routine yourself
2)  Refer to anyone who calls *you* 'dear' as snookums.
3)  Otherwise, maintain as calm a 'tone' as possible.

This usually works for me unless, of course, you are posting to
soc.feminism, (not to be confused with alt.feminism!).
From: jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James Preston)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Date: 24 Nov 92 00:59:28 GMT
Reply-To: jsp@pls.amdahl.com
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

dwelch@mpd.tandem.com (Dan Welch) writes:

}In article <robert.722215826@labyrinth> robert@informix.com (Robert Coleman) writes:
}>slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:
}>
}>>Part of the function of advertising is to create a desire on the part 
}>>of the buying public for a particular product.
}>	The commercial can't make me desire the product.  All it can do is let
}>me know that the product exists, so that I can try it, and evaluate it for
}>the things that really matter.

}If you really believe this, and if it's really true, you're a pretty amazing
}person.  Or else, completely and utterly dispassionate.

}You've never seen a car commercial and gone, "Wow, what a great car, I wish
}I could afford one"?  I'm not saying that the commercial made you go out and
}put yourself in debt, but can you really say that it didn't create a desire
}in you?

I don't know about Robert, but I can say with complete confidence that a
car commercial has never created a desire in me.  Oh, it has happened that,
upon seeing a commercial for a car that appealed to me, I have thought,
"Wow, what a great looking car".  But the commercial certainly did not do
anything to create a desire.  It only did as Robert said:  It showed me
the existence of something that I would be attracted to.  I think the same
thing when I see a nice looking car on the street.

}I think that commercials are creating desires in you each and every day.  I
}also think you're confusing your ability to resist these desires with a
}complete absence of them.  They are there; you are just able to overcome
}them, better than most perhaps.

In my case, this is completely wrong, and I have no qualms about saying
that.  Commercials just don't "create" any desires in me.  I don't have
to do anything or think anything to get myself to not buy Coke or Pepsi or
Reeboks or Infinities; there's nothing to resist, I have no desire for
those things.  I can say with complete confidence that every major purchase
I make is on the basis of the characteristics of the item itself, not on
any way that it is advertised.

--James Preston