HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: x73rl@ll.mit.edu ( Rick Lafave)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: More Thoughts About Father Notification/Father Responsibility
Date: 14 Sep 92 20:43:05 GMT
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory


  Just wanted to inject a thought (or two or twelve) about responsibility....
I think everyone agrees that:
  1) rights and responsibility should go together, and 
  2) it takes two to tango, so if one can't stand the heat stay out of
the kitchen.
  
But let me digress...
  In the event of an unanticipated pregnancy, the decision regarding 
abortion is solely the females.  She may (or may not) talk to the male, as
she sees fit.  This is consistant with the *her body - her choice* 
argument.  The male has no *rights* during that time.  No problems so far.
  After the child is born, then the male has rights and responsibilities.
  Shouldn't either;
  a) the male's rights start at conception and continue.  Or
  b) the male not be required to resume responsibility after birth?
                     ^^^^^^^^
  Let me try to be clearer...
  I am confused in that, yes the male had a role in conception, however 
after that the (insert favorite z/e/f word) is hers, hers, hers.  Note that 
none of the aforementioned words are 'his'.  Now 9 months later a child is 
born and now its 'his & hers'.  How did it get to be his again, when just 
a few months ago it was hers, hers, hers.  Did he have ANYTHING to say 
about her defining his responsibilities?   I doubt it.  If it was hers, 
hers, hers, shouldn't she be shouldering the brunt of the responsibility, 
responsibility, responsibility.  Well obviously the male has responsibilities,
so to me the male must have some rights (although what they are is quite 
unclear) which begin at conception.
  All I'm looking for is a consistant set of rules to work with so lets
get back to option a).

  Is father notification so much to ask??
  Apparently so.  We as a society trust females to make the appropriate 
decision regarding abortion and notification.  Appropriate being DEFINED by 
*what the female WISHES to do*.  How many times on the net have I read *If 
she doesn't notify, she must have (or have had) good reasons - perhaps he 
is violence prone.*  We trust the female to make the best decision.
  We as a society do not trust males.  Period, end of sentence.  Why do we 
implicitly trust females?
  The default is that males are deceitful while females are to be trusted.
Why???  This is quite contrary to my experience.
  We as a society will be able to approach equality when we treat all as 
equals independent of gender.  We are certainly a FAR cry from that these 
days.
  
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: tyger@netcom.com (Kitty in the Middle)
Subject: Re: Unisex bathrooms
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 92 17:42:10 GMT
Organization:  Something close to nothing, but different than the day before
Keywords: bathrooms

In article <1992Sep4.171632.6786@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>Idbil Fubar writes:
>
>>ps.  You do realize it is illeagal for me to take a piss in the woman's room
>>yet you can waltz in to the men's room as if nothing is going on...even though
>>urunals don't have doors
>
>Does anyone know if this is really true?  Does it vary state to state?
>Could such an imbalance hold up in court in an ERA state?

I don't know how things are here, but there was a case of a woman being 
arrested in (I think) Texas for using the men's room when there was a huge
line at the women's room. I forget the venue/date, but I think she was fined.
Dunno anything beyond that...

>Since my mother is in a wheelchair and needs help in the restroom,
>my father *routinely* walks into the women's room "as if nothing is 
>going on."  (I suppose they could go into the men's room, but it is
>*she* who has to go, not him, so they use 'her' room.)  In the more than
>a decade of doing this, no woman has ever complained.  And while it is 
>a special circumstance that everyone seems to understand, he, she and I 
>would be quite surprised if it were actually illegal.

Such a case as that wouldn't be, most likely, the same way seeing eye dogs
are allowed in places other animals aren't. However in situations where you 
just don't wanna wait, it could be...I don't know of but that one case, though.

>rini

    Tyger
-- 
      Kristen Kohlbecker    And I would choose to be with you
      tyger@netcom.com      That's if the choice were mine to make   
                            But you can make decisions too
      A Tyger and a Lady    And you can have this heart to break
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: THE PARABLE OF THE CHILD REARING COLLECTIVE
Date: 12 Sep 92 02:52:46 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

| (Gordon Fitch) writes:
| >I hadn't seen this, but I said that there were problems with
| >Plan #2, and this story expounds, at length, on one of them.
| >So what's your point?

gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
| The point is that most women, feminist or not, will not tolerate a 
| woman like Mary even for one minute *if* they had to pay for her
| irresponsibility.  They support her today just because they can
| shift the cost to someone else.

Ach!  Then let us make them, too, pay taxes!!
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING)
Subject: Re: Grading papers
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<4SEP199215550439@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov>
	<1992Sep4.213851.2740@burrhus.harvard.edu>
	<1992Sep5.050235.13056@cco.caltech.edu>
	<1992Sep5.061153.25259@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 23:49:10 GMT

In article <1992Sep5.061153.25259@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek) writes:

- I am reminded of a map-reading course I took in college; due to the school
- being small and the ROTC department eager to promote itself, the course was
- taught by an army captain.  One of the questions on a quiz was, "Would you
- be interested in earning money while still in school and becoming an
- officer upon graduation?"  Like your comment, it supposedly had no effect on
- the grade.  Like your comment, it had no business being there.

I agree.  More appropriate would be a short in-class lecture on the
alternatives.  Some composition professors even suggest using "they"
before "he or she."  Personally, I like alternating he and she, maybe
the masculine with possessives and feminine with the personal.

But it would be more helpful for it to be a basic, neutral,
educational lecture to the whole class, with the pretense that it
might be a good idea for the future.j

Another idea is, at the beginning of the course, to set a rule.  You
don't want your buttons pushed when you're supposed to be grading
objectively.  Just say near the beginning, "You must alternate," or
"you must use she instead of he" or "you must use s/he" ... or
whatever.

--
Andrew Werling   awerling@nmsu.edu   yip@rever.nmsu.edu
"Jesus is coming, look busy."
          --from a button I bought in an Albuquerque bookstore.
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Choice for men
Date: 10 Sep 92 23:57:21 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: The Piranha Club

In article <nancyo.716158932@sfu.ca> nancyo@fraser.sfu.ca 
(Nancy Patricia O'Connor) writes:

>I recently read an article about alternative methods of birth control
>for MEN (I think it was in an old issue of MS.), and it seemed to
>suggest that while there are many forms that have been thought of
>and probably even researched to a degree, there isn't the same
>demand for a male method of hormonally (for example) controlling
>reproduction as there is for women.  Surprise, surprise.

It is well known that it is easier to break a hormone's cycle when
there is a cycle.  I'm not surprised that Ms. magazine has not heard
that there is no male monthly cycle, it fits their ignorance...

>Apparently these methods have been found to be safer and easier than
>the female methods also.   

Would you mind to post more details about those wonderful methods?
Please give full details of why it is expected to work, and what
are the risks.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: STNG episode about homosexuality
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 03:29:56 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.161807.27749@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
>
>They did do an episode on homosexuality.  It had some problems (IMO).
>A brief plot outline - there is a planet where having a gender identity
>is looked on as an illness.  One of the aliens is 'ill' in this manner,
>and has a relationship with Riker.  She is found out, and cured via
>'psychotectic therapy'.  Riker tries to rescue her, but she's already
>been 'cured' and says she's glad she's normal now and she can't understand
>why she avoided getting help.  Riker goes away pissed.  End of story.

I'm not sure I'd call that an episode on homosexuality (neuter has a
female identity and is attracted to Riker).  Maybe if the alien had a
female identity and had been attracted to Dr. Crusher...

I thought it said some good things about having something entirely
natural to some people being treated as an illness by the majority,
but it still didn't deal with homosexuality clearly.  I'd love to see
a gay or lesbian couple as part of the background in the ship's bar,
etc.  Heck, I was hoping Ensign Ro (spelling?) would turn out to be
lesbian, but there was that episode about her and Riker.

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: dfrankow@unity.cs.umn.edu (Dan Frankowski)
Subject: Bathroom symbols
Organization: University of Minnesota
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 16:52:41 GMT

In <1992Sep11.144510.18978@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (Rini Clarkberg) writes:

>[snip]

>Now this suddenly brought forth for me the cookie cutout shapes that
>identify that male restroom and the female restroom.  What is the sign that
>we all so intuitively identify as 'male'?  Does it have a dick?  A beard?
>NO!  It's just a good damn, generic, neutered _human_, pure and simple.
>And what is the sign we know as 'female'?  Not generic at all -- hourglass
>figure with a skirt.  

>So what does this imply to me?  Not only is pretty true that "man" means
>male human, but fucking "human" -- generic human with no curls or no dress --
>means "man" too!  It's like "man" is the default value for "human".

I found your interpretation very interesting indeed.  Thanks for
posting.  I'd never thought of it that way.  Now (honestly trying not
to sound adversarial), what symbols would you use instead?

I agree that the symbols currently used are based on the assumption
that most women will wear skirts and most men won't.  I also agree
that this isn't necessarily the case and that there's no reason that
official symbols should promote such stereotypes.  But then how do we
generically show the difference between the genders so someone who
can't read English knows which bathroom to go into?

The easy answer is "Unisex bathrooms" but humor me and suppose that we
don't want to do that.  (I am personally undecided on the issue.)

>Now this interpretation is way too repulsive for me, to think that our
>society has the generic human standing there to indicate the "male's"
>restroom.  As a form of denial, I have adopted a new interpretation that
>seems to make more sense.  The generic human restroom is for all of us,
>man and woman alike.  The restroom where the human wears a skirt is for
>people who wear skirts.  Now doesn't that make more sense?

It makes more sense (and is a clever use of satire) but I don't think
it solves the problem.

>rini 

Dan Frankowski        dfrankow@cs.umn.edu
--
Dan Frankowski                dfrankow@cs.umn.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Pro-LIFE feminists???
Date: Sun, 06 Sep 92 13:44:31 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <715763942@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>In article<1992Sep6.030251.12001@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>
>>The theory itself is vacuous, since the issue is not whether
>>abortion is good or bad but whether the state has, or ought
>>to have, the power to prevent it and force childbearing.
 
A-By quite a few feminists the state should have the power to force
A-*moral* behavior.  E.g. the FBI should run after dead-beat dads,
A-no matter why they don't pay; porno should be censored; affirmative
A-action quotas are a great idea; a forced socialism is a good thing.
 
B-If you cross the above idea with the idea that women are "closer" to
B-nature and they should follow nature instead of changing it (a green
B-idea IMO), feminists-against-abortion is a possible result.

How can you cross A (power to force) with B (closer to nature)? They
seem diametrically opposed, and from prior postings, A would seem to
be exactly the same "male" world view which some feminists claim to be
the cause of all womens problems. Or is it only bad when men do it?
 
>(Read sometimes "The Hustler" by Pat Califia if you really want to
>know how a feminists-dominated society would probably look like.)
>
>> )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
>
>Hillel                                                gazit@cs.duke.edu
>
>"Need $ ????  Why not go on WELFARE?
>All you have to do is give up your self-respect, 
>your dignity and your boyfriend."

Rich

payner@netcom.com
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: women in engineering ( help..))
Date: 9 Sep 92 03:29:41 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: alt.feminism,soc.men
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

In article<1992Sep8.213943.23463@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:

>plain bad?  What else don't you like?  How about if I say
>I'm a transvestite homosexual drug-addicted bingo-player
>who goes to stupid movies and listens to rap?

Can't be; you are no open minded enough for that.

[Hillel]:
| 1) Once a job becomes high paying, men are willing to make 
|    much more effort to get into it.
| 2) In the industry (especially small companies, where most of
|    the growth is) one is judged more by what one achieved and
|    not by his/her degree.

>You may be right about the second point; I don't know.
>The job was always high-paying.  

The job of someone who hacked around on 16K of the IBM 1401 was 
always high paying; the job of those who can verify a program, 
write readable code, stay away from assembler whenever it's 
possible, etc. is pretty new, and is defined in academic terms.
(It is amazing how many programmers "invent" new heuristics when
there is a solid and simple theoretical solution.)

What happens is that programming is less of an art and more of
a profession that one can learn.

>It was just out of the 
>control of the academic system for about fifteen years.  If
>we agree that the field is being -- what would the word be --
>patriarchalized? -- then the evidence would seem to be that
>the problem lies in the authority systems of Academia and the
>(big) corporate world.  

The academia lives of large grants that in the long run will
destroy the academic integrity, and the big corporation try
to survive, not to grow.

>Now, that would make sense to me,
>since as far as I know, Academia has been the home of the
>fiercest opposition to any kind of equality for women.  

The academic system also does not like Jews, asians, foreigners,
etc., but it bends its "principles" when the payoff is large enough.

Anyway, my point is that the *growth* today is in the small 
companies and they look for skills, no matter if the skills
are "proved" by a university diploma or not.

They hire women when the price and the skills match,
so women who can write good code and are willing to work the 
small companies *crazy* hours can find a place.  The academia 
is just not very relevant for this high growth domain...

> )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(

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: Re: Dworkin dead
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 06:09:25 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Sep10.231149.20743@midway.uchicago.edu> wag5@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>	Ok. So have any of you Dworkin haters taken seriously
>the idea to take up a collection of, say, $1000.00 and hire an
>ex-KGB assassin to waste her? I didn't think so. Put up or shut
>up.
>
>			J. Wagner
>
>P.S. Weanies.
>

I find this idea even more objectinable than (my perception) of Dworkin
herself.

As for "put up or shut up", what do you think we are doing right now?


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: laura@vipunen.hut.fi (Laura Tiilikainen)
Subject: Re: women in engineering ( help..)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date:  7 Sep 92 09:43:13 GMT


In <16858F0E2.FM010201@ysub.ysu.edu> FM010201@ysub.ysu.edu writes:

>I am a graduate student in engineering, a minority, doing a thesis on
>" women , engineering and creativity". I am interested in knowing
>about the opinion of others about why there is not much interest in
>women about becoming engineer. I am pursuing two traditional line of search:
> 1. Nature: ...
>2. Nurture: ...

I'm apt to believe on the both alternatives. I'm student in
electrical engineering, in which 90 percent of the students are men.
On my female student fellows I've noticed a strong masculine
background (strong support from father or mainly boys as
playmates/friends) which seems to refer to the second alternative. On
the other hand, those women who have not had the background seem to be
mentally strong enough to oppose the expectations to choose some
feminine branch, which refers to the 'dominating' nature of those women.

			Laura
From: Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,rec.arts.startrek.misc
Subject: Re: STNG episode about homosexuality
Date: 13 Sep 92 21:23:14 GMT
 <1992Sep12.032956.10243@leland.Stanford.EDU> 
 <1992Sep12.214422.25397@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> 
 <AWERLING.92Sep13122942@dante.nmsu.edu>  
 <1992Sep13.194415.27988@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a4@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <1992Sep13.194415.27988@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca>
smackinnon@mta.ca writes:

> Sorry but i belived that the first interacial man to man kiss was
> in SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE with Bill Murry and OJ Simpsom.
> there was also a same race man to man kiss with OJ Simpson and the 
> Person of color on the show at the time(sorry I can't remeber his name)

This is interesting (was it really a passionate kiss??), but it's not
quite what I meant.  Saturday Night Live isn't Prime Time.  While it
may be foolish to assume that more kids see LA Law than Saturday Night
Live, it still remains that network television makes quite a
distinction between those two viewing times w.r.t. what material is
appropriate.
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:1146 soc.men:16417
From: Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: a programmer is not an engineer, indeed
Date: 14 Sep 92 22:32:40 GMT
 <1992Sep14.152837.9951@uoft02.utoledo.edu>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a4@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <1992Sep14.152837.9951@uoft02.utoledo.edu>
dweddin@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:

> regardless, i will also assume from your stories that you are very
> intelligent and could have handled the hard core engineering stuff...
> but the point is...YOU DIDN'T. now when an employer comes to hire,
> he or she looks at the list of classes and the degree and says,
> 
> "hey, muffy did well...but didn't take any of the engineering classes
>  while fred did well and DID take the engineering classes."
> 
> now would it be discrimination if the employer hires fred and not muffy
> for a softwre engineering position???? 

It really depends on what educational background the employer wants, of
course.  If the employer wants more programming background than one
Fortran and one Microprocessor course, then the employer will hire
Muffy.

If the employer wants someone who majored in math and minored in
Physics and CS (and Philosophy!), they'll hire me.  If they want an
engineer, they'll hire Fred.

Personally, I think a lot can be gleaned from a good interview.

Unfortunately, a lot of CS departments seem to be straying from the
fundamentals, turning out CS'ers who don't have much of a concept of,
say, a "bus" or a "cache".  Not understanding the basic processor model
can limit one's capabilities as a programmer.  Perhaps it is for this
reason that some folks prefer to hire engineers.

In my limited experience, a good undergraduate educational background
for programmers is Algorithms, Compilers, Operating Systems, some math
and/or theoretical CS, E&M, and Microprocessor Architecture w/
Assembly.  There was no engineering school where I went (Williams), so
I don't know if there are some engineering classes that would
demonstrate the same kind of skills that math or CS theory would.  

I had all the above as an undergraduate except for Compilers and
Operating Systems, which I have since regretted not taking.  

By the way, I looked through the newsgroups we can get here and
couldn't find an appropriate group to direct follow-ups to.  Does
anyone have a suggestion?
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:1126 soc.men:16398 soc.women:16568
From: nancyo@fraser.sfu.ca (Nancy Patricia O'Connor)
Subject: Re: Choice for men
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 21:02:12 GMT

zen@death.corp.sun.com (d) writes:



>>I think that Norplant or IUD as a condition for welfare will be fair because
>>the woman will have to do something that helps society in exchange for the 
>>welfare, but I don't think that most of the "choice for women!" feminists 
>>will agree that *their* reproduction right will be under such attack...

>  Why not an implant for both men *and* women?  You always are so quick
>to lay the onus of responsibility on women.  If you just did it to
>women, or just did it to men, I'd say you were being unfair in both
>cases.  You could say that nothing currently exists for men that would
>do this, but I'm taking a more philosophical side to things right now,
>plus I don't think that it would take that long (how long is "not long",
>I don't know :-) Years, surely) to develop something like that for men,
>if it was important.

I recently read an article about alternative methods of birth control
for MEN (I think it was in an old issue of MS.), and it seemed to
suggest that while there are many forms that have been thought of
and probably even researched to a degree, there isn't the same
demand for a male method of hormonally (for example) controlling
reproduction as there is for women.  Surprise, surprise.

Apparently these methods have been found to be safer and easier than
the female methods also.   

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (Rini Clarkberg)
Subject: Re: Choice for men
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 19:56:08 GMT

biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel) writes:

>Presumably the goal of birth control is the prevention of fertilization
>of a specific female. 

I would have to say that the "birth control" in and of itself does not
have "goals".  So you really have to ask about the goals of the people using 
it.  Some people use birth control to prevent themselves from becoming 
mothers.  Some people use birth control to prevent themselves from becoming
fathers.  Some people might use birth control so that they can avoid
parenting with this specific partner.  

>It is obviously more efficient to find an effective
>means of preventing ovulation/fertilization/implantation for her than to
>suppress the production of sperm for every male she might mate with.

No, it's not obvious. 

rini