HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Choice for men
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 00:57:18 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <SK73171.92Sep26101744@korppi.cs.tut.fi> sk73171@cs.tut.fi (Kiiskil{ Sami) writes:
>
>In article <q16ncnp.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>
>> You lost me here, if there is a law against something, then it is not
>> allowed.
>
>That is not enough. The law isn't enough, there must be at least some
>sort of negative feedback if someone breaks the law. And if the
>authorities doesn't have enough power to provide that feedback to
>those who break it, situation is the same if the law doesn't even exist.

Generally I disagree. If you break a law, and noone complains, then
what is the point of a penalty. I am talking about 'victimless' crimes,
things which, though illegal, affect noone else. Severe penalties for
murder even if there are no complaints.

And I forget what brought this question up...
 
>> I'm glad to hear that things are going well in Finland. But you stand
>
>Grrhh... 
>
>> a chance fighting crime, fighting the government is another thing
>> entirely.
>
>But if the government has already collected our money by taxes, what 
>would it gain from ordinary subjects with more power ? I think it is
>fair to ask government some services for the money we have paid. Like 
>putting criminals out of business.

Not if they can label any group which is not Politically Correct as
criminals. I'd say the biggest crime of the government is removing the
means of the citizens to protect themselves, but disclaiming that same
responsibility. Get a gun, you may become a criminal. Use it, and say
the wrong thing (this is really stupid, IMHO), and you become guilty of
a crime, even if protecting yourself and your family. 
 
>> >Nope. Mostly bad. Bad economy. People are not happy with government policy.
>> >Crimes. Disasters. etc...
>
>> But you just claimed that things were going well, or so it seemed to me?
>
>Nope. I said that in that particular issue we have things better. Like
>some other issues too. In some other they are worse.

<sigh>, And so it goes...
 
>> Show me a situation where everybody is happy? 
>
>And there isn't a country where everybody is happy. But that isn't
>an exuse for making things worse.

Did not the Nazi's claim to be making things better? My point is that
claimed intent is not sufficient. 
 
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>: Money isn't everything, : Sami Kiiskil{  ( The { means 'ae' ) :   Nothing   :
>: . . . there is also     : e-mail : sk73171@ee.tut.fi          :     is      :
>:  H i g h - T e c h  ! ! : phone : 931-180690 or 934-428254    : impossible. :
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>-- 

Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: cindy@meshugge.media.mit.edu (Cindy Blank-Edelman)
Subject: Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda (Was: Value of...)
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: M.I.T. Media Laboratory
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 18:12:46 GMT

Thank you for posting some quotes from Catharine MacKinnon.  I had
never read anything by her, and now I will make sure to go out and
read some of her stuff.  I am always grateful to find new feminist
authors.  

Thanks again!

--Cindy Blank-Edelman
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil)
Subject: Re: Mace, Pepperguard, etc.
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 03:20:32 GMT

bluelobster+@CMU.EDU (David O Hunt) writes:

>Tear-Gas Concentrate:  Highly recommended!
>Pepperguard:  Recommended.

    Here in Omaha, tear gas and pepperguard have just about sold out.  
Two weeks ago two eastern Nebraska women were abducted.  One was found dead
last night.  Still another women has been missing for about three months.
And in the surrounding states, two women have been found dead.  After the
last young woman was found dead, my dad went out and bought me a tear gas
keychain.  It's got a dye in it that is supposed to last several days as
well.

    What's really scary to me is that the dead Omaha girl was abducted right
outside her high school right as classes started.  I mean, whoever got her
got her in the daylight as she was just going about her business.  It's really
stressful when you consider that you're not even safe during the daytime.

    I'm not so sure that carrying around this keychain is going to make me
feel all that much better, but it will probably give my dad some peace of 
mind.  

    I am considering getting a CB radio for my car though.  One of my friend's
parents got her a cellular phone, but I think that a CB radio would be less
expensive.  

    What a sick and sordid world we live in.

	Sharon

oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: garry@rice.edu (Garry C. King)
Subject: Re: Women as Victims (was:_Backlash_ ( Sort of ))
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: Rice University
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 17:38:20 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.021155.26304@panix.com>, gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
wrote:
> garry:
> | BTW, did Robert propose a "return to the kitchen amendment" ? (hint: no).
> | I assume that I've stepped into some long-standing personal argument here. 
> | If so, I apologise for taking your statements seriously.
> 
> I don't understand your last two sentences; if they're 
> relevant, could you elucidate?  I thought I was just
> following Robert's text, not some long-standing et cetera.

I haven't seen anything in any of Robert's posts that I've read to suggest
that he wants to preferentially fire, demote or otherwise reduce the role
of any women in the workplace.  Your response struck me as disingenuous. 
In essence, Robert asked for equality, but you replied as if he had
proposed banishing women into the kitchen.  The man is straw, so obviously
that I had to assume you were continuing some long-standing nyah nyah
argument.

> In regard your comments, let me give an example from Real
> Life (tm).  Now, however, the corporation _likes_ the women, 
> because it turns out, in spite of dire prediction, they're 
> smart and honest and they work hard. 

About as smart, honest and hard-working as men, no ?

> How is he going
> to get rid of the women, which is what he seems to want to
> do?  If the corporation _doesn't_ get rid of them, then
> the status quo, which Robert dislikes, is being preserved.
> In fact, it'll probably get "worse." So I assume that from
> Robert's point of view something has to be done.

But he didn't say he wanted to. He said he wanted to remove preferences for
women, nothing more.  The position of previously preferred women would be
no different to that of men at the time when women gained wide access to
professional careers.  They'd realize that their privileged days were over
(and fight to try to retain them).  Doesn't sound too tough to me.  I
didn't see any retroactivity in his proposals, just that, from now on,
things be equal (which if I remember rightly, was a feminist belief way
back at some point in time).

> In regard to the First Amendment, I pointed out that the
> First Amendment specifically permits "assaults" on it, 

Yep. His third point was more of a wish than a proposal.    

> And it probably belongs
> in soc.men, not alt.feminism, unless you have the idea
> (as some did about the draft) that the feminists should
> do it all while the men concerned do nothing.

Personally, I think this group should be named alt.equalitarian, since most
arguments seem to be over equality vs. special preference for women, but
what the hell. 
BTW Robert, If you're reading, feel free to correct any mischaracterization
of your views I may have made.

Garry.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
From: slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen)
Subject: Re: Violent Di Batters Charles
Keywords: Poor Little Princess!
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 20:35:05 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.180053.17246@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.132202.142@news.nd.edu> slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:
>>
>>The National Enquirer?  Lady Colin Campbell?  Come on, Robert, you've got 
>>to be joking.......
>>
>
>Why? Actually, the "National Enquirer" has gotten pretty careful about
>checking out the facts before reporting a story, since they lost some
>big libel suits in the 1970s. (This does not guarantee that a story is
>true, of course, only that people have been quoted accurately).
>
>Why do you disbelieve this? Is is because sweet little women never
>belittle their husbands to test their manhood?

Never said I disbelieved it.  I'm just surprised that a self-proclaimed 
skeptic would take seriously any articles in the National Enquirer.  
In fact, the Enquirer's last backtracks did not occur in the 70s, they 
got slapped around by Tom Selleck and Carol Burnett and Roseanne Arnold 
fairly recently.  The Enquirer, instead of going to court to support 
their stories will simply settle and print a teeny-tiny retraction.

And, as for the royals, it is well-established that the British royal 
family will not sue rags or other media outlets for any reason because 
the queen does not wish to have her family members questioned in 
open court.  The rags and authors over there are well aware of this and 
that is why Lady Colin Campbell prints in one book that Di is violent, and 
that Andrew (Can't remember the last name) prints in another book that 
Charles is violent, and a daily will claim it has nudie photos of Di 
or a taped telephone conversation without ever coughing up the evidence 
to support these claims.

It seems plausible to me that Diana would shriek and punch, throw plates, 
etc. at Charles.  Neither of those two seem to have a real stable grip. 
But if you wish to generate dialog on wives physically abusing their 
husbands, I think that there is much more credible source material than 
what one finds in the Enquirer.

Plus, I prefer The Star.  They got better photos of celebs in gruesome duds.

Sue Larsen
slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: petersm@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU (Marguerite Petersen)
Subject: Re: Bias in Academia?
Organization: Computer Science Outreach Services - Oregon State University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 09:08:58 GMT

In article <1aap52INN77u@agate.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:
>>>I'll turn it around.  Would it be fair for a woman who worked shorter hours
>>>or took a substantial break in the middle of her career to reach the top as
>>>fast as her male peers who worked non-stop through the same period ? 
>>
>>It is fair for a society not to help with childcare and then present
>>us with this as the only "reasonable" choice?
>
>It's absolutely fair for society to not help with childcare.
>
>If somebody wants to take time-out in mid-career to
>pursue something of a personal nature that's their
>personal choice.  They should expect a commesurate negative impact 
>on their carrer.  And I don't care whether that "something"
>is looking after their children for 5 years, or following
>the Grateful Dead around for 5 years -- I am disinclined
>to help them out with my tax dollars either way.

Now that's an interesting idea.  Perhaps I *should* have done just
that instead of being at home to raise my 3 children.

More deleted:

>Those who have the means to do so should have to
>finance the costs of raising children out of their
>after-tax income.  Just because it's an expensive
>proposition doesn't mean you should soak the taxpayers
>for it.
>
>Steve

And this attitude is probably why it is so difficult to get any decent
money for education in this country, including good schools and decent
wages for qualified teachers.

Marg
From: garry@rice.edu (Garry C. King)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Bias in Academia?
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:23:39 GMT
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: Rice University

In article <1992Sep29.013021.4758@leland.Stanford.EDU>,
farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) wrote (in two posts):

>> This is not at all obvious to me what you mean by this.  Do you mean
>> that you, as the sole wage-earner in your family, can't spend more
>> time with it?  Do you mean that your female friend, with a husband who
>> earns as much or more than she, can?
>> Or is it that your wife does most of the childcare as you work and
>> your female friend does most of the childcare as she works?

> Why don't we wait until King@Rice (I think that's who it was) responds
> and see what he has to say about what he actually meant?

I'm not terribly keen on my life being used as the cause for yet more
deliberate misunderstanding, but here goes. 

The point I was trying to make is this: 
If you're going to pursue a demanding career (and academia is demanding for
me at least), then large amounts of time and energy will be required to
reach the "top" levels.  Time and energy that many (most ?) women would
prefer to partially channel towards child rearing for at least some of
their working lives (all three of our female faculty are childless). 
 
The question I imagine that you ask is: is it fair that the time many women
devote to child care reduces the level of their professional success
somewhat when men can both "have children" and reach the heights of their
profession (with skill, luck and a huge amount of hard work) ?   
I dunno.  On the face of it, it isn't, but the question is quite
complicated.

I'll turn it around.  Would it be fair for a woman who worked shorter hours
or took a substantial break in the middle of her career to reach the top as
fast as her male peers who worked non-stop through the same period ? 
 
Some people talk of the "mommy track" derisively, but to me it seems a
decent way to fufill two competing desires. I'm not aware of any law that
forces women to have children. Of course, none of this deals with whether
long working hours "should" be required for professional success (this is
somewhat more relevant to the U.S. than eleswhere), or whether men "should"
want to or actually take more responsibility for child care.  People come
to their own decisions in the context of their (many and various)
situations.  

Since you're interested, my wife earns about half the salary I do (she has
less formal qualifications), though we're moving to Australia soon, where
the distribution of pay scales is narrower and the difference will be
substantially reduced.  My step-children are 21 and 19, have all moved out
of home and live on another continent. 

The original question was about anti-female bias in academia.  Frankly, I
find your general attitude on this newsgroup to be rather tiresome.  


Garry.
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Women as Victims (was:_Backlash_ ( Sort of ))
Date: 5 Oct 92 04:57:19 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <1992Oct3.183342.26778@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.034643.24329@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
@ sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
@ | If you want to *do* something, help the balance of power (at least here
@ | in North America) swing back away from the position that calls itself
@ | "feminist," back in the direction of equality of REAL power for women
@ | and men.
@ 
@ Which would be what?  What would you do to women to
@ redress the balance of power?

>For starters,
>   -End preferences and quotas for women in hiring and promotions

	Like what?

	Affirmative action is designed to correct known biases, such
as those against woman and black people in some quarters. I'm well
aware that it is sometimes considered "reverse discrimination", a
charge that may well have merit. But there _has_ been a lot of
anti-woman stereotyping in decades past, if you are not so blind as to
be aware of that.

>   -End prosecutions for vague "harassment" that in fact are plain-out
>    censorship of 'things feminists don't like' (or, alternately, give
>    men the SAME power)

	Like...

>   -End the feminist assault on the first amendment.

	Like...

>   -Either abolish "Womens' Studies," or else give "Mens' Studies" the
>    same footing.

	Why???

	My preference would be to make it unnecessary, to end the
locking out of women from important positions.
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: "Alt.feminism - why it should be shut down.  A sample post!"
Date: 28 Sep 92 10:55:14
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<MUFFY.92Sep23113600@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<!t!pn-g.sheaffer@netcom.com> <1992Sep26.204151.17941@panix.com>
	<6401@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu's message of 28 Sep 92 17:28:08 GMT

In article <6401@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood) writes:
>In article <1992Sep26.204151.17941@panix.com>, gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:

>  > muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>  > | >*LAUGH*.  Well, this certainly is a surprise to me.  What I said, as
>  > | >quoted right here on this fine newsgroup was that I did *not* recommend
>  > | >anyone doing that, but that I would find it more *believable* as an
>  > | >effort to help women than I do the censoring of alt.sex.bondage.  After
>  > | >all, *this* is where all the hatred of women comes out, not a.s.b.

> > sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
> > | Yes, "I'm not favoring *censoring* this slimy newsgroup, but if
> > | SOMEONE ELSE were to do that, I'd stand by the sidelines and cheer!"

>> That's not what she said.  You're straining, Robert.

>Yea, right!  Which pot is calling which kettle "black"?

>Censorship leaves a bad taste in my mouth.  Even when it's only a suggested
>as being more "*believable* as an effort".  One doesn't have to be a genius
>to read between the lines.

Perhaps, though, one has to be a genuis to read *correctly* between the
lines.  If you had read the entire article (see news.admin), you would
have seen that the entire thing was an argument *against* censorship.
In addition, perhaps a genius might consider that *I* know what I am
saying better than Robert Sheaffer, and note that everywhere, on the
net, I have *always* opposed censorship.  (By the way, I do not believe
that moderating a newsgroup is censorship, which is why I do not oppose
it.)

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
~Little round planet/in a big universe/sometimes it looks blessed/
 sometimes it looks cursed/Depends on what you look at, obviously/
 But even more it depends on the way that you see~ - Bruce Cockburn
From: zen@death.corp.sun.com (d)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Observations from male studentnt
Date: 25 Sep 92 17:35:38
Organization: savage hackers
	<1992Sep25.214541.15830@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>
NNTP-Posting-Host: death.corp.sun.com
In-reply-to: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov's message of 25 Sep 92 21:45:41 GMT


In article <1992Sep25.214541.15830@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes) writes:
>cindy@meshugge.media.mit.edu (Cindy Blank-Edelman) writes:
>>If people drive Rolls Royces in public because they want to flaunt
>>their wealth in order to gain power or admiration, and a car thief
>>comes and steals the cars, who is responsible?  The car thief.  
>Not necessarily. If you leave your rolls parked in South Central LA
>with the keys in it...well there's some shared responsibility there.

  Why so?  You seem to be saying that if there is a known risk involved,
then the owner is responsible.  Well, there is a risk in just *owning* a
car, no matter *where* you live.  So by your logic, then there is shared
responsibility for all cars stolen -- is this what you think?  If not,
what is *enough* caution to relieve you of responsibility?  If there is
some arbitrary threshold (e.g. parking in south central LA vs. parking
in witchita, kansas), then who gets to set the threshold?  I think that
the responsibility shouldn't be black and white based on location --
i.e. in one location you're not responsible and another you are, since
no place is totally safe.  To me theft implies taking something away
from another involuntary party -- no one is asking to have something
stolen, or else it isn't theft.

  By similar arguments, you can say that women are responsible for being
raped, by wearing provocative clothing, walking through bad
neighborhoods, etc.  I think that leads to pretty destructive logic...

 --d
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: "Alt.feminism - why it should be shut down.  A sample post!"
Date: 28 Sep 92 13:35:55
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<MUFFY.92Sep28105514@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<6414@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu's message of 28 Sep 92 19:52:02 GMT

In article <6414@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood) writes:
> But I am now quite
> sure you'd *never* support the censorship of soc.men or alt.feminism just
> to help women!

Imagine my relief.

> You sound like a "spin doctor" in a political campaign.  I'm truly happy to
> hear you say that you oppose censorship.

You sound like a liar.

> I'm sure you will have no problem
> with the fact that anyone can now post their own opinions on feminism in this
> newsgroup.

Indeed, I do not have a problem with that fact.  You seem to, though.
You refuse to grant me my opinions, but instead wish to endow me with
*YOUR* opinions of my opinions.

> That's very reassuring for all to hear.  I'm sure that people
> like Ronald Reagan, George Herbert Walker Bush, and Danny Quayle also oppose
> censorship.  You are in good company!

I see that you have been working hard in your logic classes.  Is this
the best you can come up with?  Surely, if I am so in favor of
censorship, you can find some article where I actually advocated it,
instead of just trying to use "guilt by association," especially such a
ridiculous association as this.  I'm pretty sure that they would not
want to be in the company of an internationally-known pervert like
myself...*grin*.

> The price one pays for an unmoderated forum is "noise".  But I'd rather have
> the "noise" and be allowed to make my own decision on what to read and what
> to throw away.

So, are you also this hostile to editors of newspapers, magazines, etc.
Do you believe that they actually are in favor of censorship, regardless
of how much they argue with anyone who tries it?

Or are you just completely close-minded on the subject of *feminists*
who edit things, not editors and such in general?

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
~Little round planet/in a big universe/sometimes it looks blessed/
 sometimes it looks cursed/Depends on what you look at, obviously/
 But even more it depends on the way that you see~ - Bruce Cockburn
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Mace, Pepperguard, CB RADIO
Date: 5 Oct 92 18:37:49 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <oneil.718255232@cwis>, oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil) writes:

>     I am considering getting a CB radio for my car though.  One of my friend's
> parents got her a cellular phone, but I think that a CB radio would be less
> expensive.  

I always carry a CB with me.  You may find places where there is no cellular
service, but you can usually raise a truck driver somewhere via CB.

I was travelling I-70 when a fellow pulled up beside me and began masturbating
and honking his horn.  I picked up my CB microphone and he turned several
shades of white, slowed down to a crawl and exited at the next ramp.

Terry
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:1857 soc.men:17191