HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: Misandrist bullshit is no better than... (was: Mysogynist bullshit)
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 16:51:05 GMT

Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>jean@cs.cornell.edu (Jean M. Petrosino) writes...

>> What is this crap about 'all women are good for is doing the dishes' and
>> 'women have small feet so they can get closer to the kitchen sink'?  I can
>> a joke, but this is over-stepping the lines of taste.
 
>This was said by ONE man, I recall (actually, two).  Does this justify your
>angry tirade about how "superior" women are?  I always considered it sexist 
>to
>try to argue that "men are superior," but I consider it *just* as sexist 
>to say
>"women are superior".

As I read it, Jean was using sarcasm to make pretty much the same point
as you are making here.

rini
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Why are many low-income women fat? (was Re: Separate but Equal?)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 03:53:43 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.072814.7365@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>In article <1992Dec23.161102.400@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec23.082529.10340@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>>>Are you not implying that fit is better than fat?
>>
>>I am saying that it is healthier to be fit. I cannot say what is better
>>or worse for you, or anyone else. 
>
>Why doesn't "healthier" == "better"?

You missed the point completely. "Better" is a value judjement, there is
no right or wrong answer. You are the only one fit to judge what is better
for yourself, I will not do it.
                --------
>>It is not my call anyway.
>> 
>>>Does it not follow from that that fat is not as good as fit?
>>
>>Good and bad are personal value judgements, draw your own. Personally,
>>I'd rather be fit. 
>>
>>>And does it not follow from that that fat people aren't as good as
>>>people who have made themselves fit?
>>
>>Again with the value judgements, draw your own, I have no interest in
>>making value judgements for enyone else.
>
>Please don't take this the wrong way, Rich...but do you *REALLY* not
>make value judgements based on how fat someone appears to be, while
>at the same time preaching being fat is a personal choice, and that
>anyone who is fat can and should become fit???

This is mixed up, there is no way I can take it, much less wrong.

Maybe this will help, your value judgement does not have to agree with
mine, and they are still both right. And I did not say that -being- fat is
a personal choice, but staying that way may be.

>Yes, I am really *THAT* surprised. 

I am too, please re-phrase, I canno undrstnd.
 
>-jen


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Xref: sparky alt.feminism:6747 soc.women:22060 soc.men:22041
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: Critique of Gimbutas' "Idyllic Goddess" Claims
From: <RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Sunday, 3 Jan 1993 07:34:45 EST
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

I feel that all this talk about what WAS as an indication of what CAN be,
is only very marginally relevant.  Whether Gimbutas is right or not,  its
relevance is only partial, as is the relevance of an opposing point of
view based on the past.

Through most of history, birth control did not exist, many professions
required  fair amount of bodily strength, most people were not literate,
there was no TV, there were no microwaves which made `woman as cook' an
absolute necessity.  All these things are changed now and the structures
that we CAN aririve at now are also therefore different.  The biological
facts are the same, and I do believe they are relevant, but they don't
determine our choices or we would have only one culture in the world.

The crucial thing to me is to ask, how can we work out a world order in
which men and women can live together in love and friendship, in which
biological differences are respected, but not made into a prison  for
anyone?  These are all possible goals and why not we, men AND women,
work towards them instead of quarreling?

Best wishes for the New Year to all,

Rohit Parikh
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
From: sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell)
Subject: RE: Feminists disrupt men's only group meeting
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 19:31:19 GMT

	I think it was wrong of the campus NOW to force their way
into the men's rape group meeting and to use the male NOW members
there as psuedo spies.

	I agree with the problems they had with the speakers, and
the attitude of the members but I think barging in on their meeting
in some way set back antirape work as well as at least giving
the people who want to stereotype feminists as inconsistent
irrational children fuel to do so.

	To my knowledge ( which could be wrong ), the kind of rape
which is the most significant problem on campuses is date/aqcuaintance
rape.  The essence of this type of rape is that the men involved have
a world view that doesnt see date rape as rape.

	The average human bieng isnt going to be likely to seriously
evaluate such a world view if they are told they are a potential
rapist by biology or if they are pummeleted by anger, pejoratives etc
as happens in women's rape groups.

	The purpose of men's rape discussion groups is to provide a place
where men feel comphortable airing these "world views" so they can be
discussed with reason and hopefully changed.

	This atmosphere was severly comprimised by angry people storming
in on the meeting handing out pamphlets in what could seem comparable to
some as angry prolesthyiesers storming a rival church.  The atmosphre
is also seriously undermined by having members wonder if they are really
safe to be honest or if there are spies from other organisations recording
what they say.  This in my view is inexcusable.

	I had the same problems as the NOW members did with what went
on that meeting.  I think they should have respected this groups sancticty
while working on the problem.  If they wanted to do something about it
they should have had the male NOW members there UP FRONT to present the
alternative views and try to sway the opinions of others by reason.
  If that didnt work they should have gotten more male NOW members to
join/saturate the group so as to influence/change the group opinion while
remainig hospitiable to other views to facilitate discussion and consideration
of new views/attitudes.  If the male NOW members in that group had a problem
with that cop spreading the misinformation they should have complained
as members of that group. 

	One of the essentials I believe behind rape is a lack of respect
for the sanctity of another human bieng and their space as a human being.
  These rash actions by NOW seemed to be returning such disrespect which
only makes others hostile towards them and other feminists.  It may
abate their anger but it only perpetuates the problems they are against

Steve R
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:6586 soc.men:21837
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Damned Souls (was Re: Version Five)
Date: 28 Dec 92 02:20:31 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: The Scorpions Nest

The following article was rejected from soc.feminism.

In article <1hkqjdINNj7d@agate.berkeley.edu> 
levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:

>>Hillel, can you really deny that people in this culture fall too quickly
>>for a slick sound byte? That they too often evaluate a situation by 
>>appearances, and do not take the time to find out what is really
>>happening?

Tell me Lenore, what will be your response to someone who questions
your experiences using a language like:

#Lenore, can you really deny that people in this culture fall too quickly
#for a slick sound byte? That they too often evaluate a situation by 
#appearances, and do not take the time to find out what is really
#happening?

Do you want people to talk to you using such a tone?

>Some company (department, agency) wishes to hire a token woman (black,
>disabled, etc.) to show off how wonderful they are. Therefore, they
>don't pick any of the well-qualified white males available for this
>position. However, they don't pick the *best-qualified* woman. Instead,
>they pick a woman who makes a good photo op -- attractive, smiling and
>noncontroversial.

It certainly happens, and the Old Boys can get away with that, because
the deal you (liberals and feminists) offered to them.  Affirmative 
action is a deal that tells them "hire enough women and minorities
and then nobody will be able to sue you about discrimination."

They took the deal, and that was dirty act on their part.

You offered the deal, and defended it for 20 years as "equality,"
and this is even a dirtier act your part.

>Let me add -- that as a middle-aged curmudgeon, I think my chances of 
>being hired as anyone's token are slimmer than a snowball's in hell.
>(Not to worry though; I suspect I'll do just fine on my own merits.)

Don't be so sure on both counts.

>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
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: looking one's age
Date: 22 Dec 1992 04:19:20 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:

>	Fact is, people DO, with *very few exceptions* (supermodels
>	come to mind) look their age.  Anyone who tells you otherwise,
>	carefully consider (that is, honestly consider) how honest
>	that statement is.

By definition!  If the majority looked younger than "their age"
then there would be something wrong with the definition of how
"one's age" looks.
-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:6448 soc.men:21710 soc.women:21847
From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Date: 23 Dec 92 07:07:15 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

I read the following in soc.men -- note the newsroups line which I
have not changed...

In article <MUFFY.92Dec22131202@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

>>Men who discuss mens issues without the footnote 'women have it much 
>>worse', or who interject that males also have a perspective on a particular
>>problem that women haven't considered (see para 1), are insensitive to 
>>womens issues/needs/whatever and are belittleing womens lives.

>Nope.  Men who say "shut up about (for example) violence against women,
>because the *real* problem is violence against men" are being
>insensitive and belittling.  Men who discuss men's issues in a group
>which is supposedly about feminism (which you yourself say is about
>women's issues) are also being insensitive, since the implication is
>that people who are concerned about women's issues *should* be spending
>their time on men's issues.  Why not keep it in soc.men and stop all
>this ridiculous cross-posting?

We don't get alt.feminism -- the only reason I saw this article was that
it was cross-posted to soc.men and soc.women which we do get.  I will
refrain from making the obvious cheap shots.  However I suspect that some
will miss the point so I will spell it out.  If you, muffy, cross post
then people will respond to your postings in the group that you cross
post to.  It scarcely makes sense for you to complain about cross posting
when you regularly do it yourself.

Cheers,

-- 
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 alt.feminism:6766 alt.abortion.inequity:6263
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Back Again To (Un)Father - NOT!
Date: 4 Jan 1993 00:26:13 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:

>And there are cases of meteorites actually hitting people. My understanding
>is that they happen about as often. Is this a telling point? Would you
>write a letter to your congresscritter demanding meteorite collision
>insurance?

You're barking up the wrong tree.  It was Karl who suggested 
maternity/paternity insurance.  I'm just going along for jollity.

-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: The White Feather Campaign
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 17:44:50 GMT

quilty@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Humberto Humbertoldi) writes:
mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

[Rape in Bosnia]

>>Hmm.  I don't know.  They had a thing about this on NBC Nightly
>>News last night.  They had a soldier who described in detail how
>>he raped ten women and killed six of them; how the Serbs run
>>'bordellos' filled with the female prisoners.  Both the rapes and
>>the murders, he claims, were committed 'under orders.' They also 
>>interviewed a young woman who was pregnant from being held captive 
>>in one of these 'bordellos'.  Didn't strike me as particularly 
>>ficticious.
 
>Hmmm... my assumption was always that NBC Nightly News is precisely a
>work of fiction.  Their sole purpose seems to be making up interesting
>stories which, if true, would serve the interests of the working
>class.  For those of you wondering why these stories of "rape camps"
>and all are being *FABRICATED* by the news media, I have but two
>words:  "Grosse Deutchland." 

I ignored the beginning of this thread...  What exactly is the 
evidence that this is all "*FABRICATED*"?  

(I must say, it seems pretty believable to me that raiding soldiers 
would rape and murder... that sort of thing has a long, long history
in war.)

rini
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Why are many low-income women fat? (was Re: Separate but Equal?)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 16:11:02 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.082529.10340@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>In article <1992Dec20.163029.19861@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>
>>I did not state that "fat people cannot be physically fit" (another
>>misrepresentation rini), but that they are -not- fit. If the distinction
>>is to subtle, then this thread should die.
>
>You state that people can be fit or fat. Exclusive or.
>
>You state that one who is fat can become fit. That it is all a matter
>of personal choice. 

Not exactly, few choose to get fat, I suspect that this is usually a matter
of training and circumstance. However, noone will go from fat to fit 
without a consious decision to do so, and a commitment to that goal.
 
>You talk about how one can become fit - but you do not talk about
>how one can become fat. 

Why bother, people do it all the time. It takes years, but otherwise is
easy to accomplish. Eat a high fat diet, and fail to get any real exercise.
 
>If you assign no relative value to being either fit or fat, why is this?

Why should I? 

>If it's simply that some people have a layer of body fat and some don't,
>just like some are shorter and some are taller, who cares? 

If you do not care, why are you posting on the topic? But there is a
difference, you can no nothing about your height.
 
>If it doesn't matter whether you're fit or fat, 

It dosen't matter to me (irrelevant anyway), whether or not it matters
to you is up to you.

>                                                 and one person can (as
>you assert) change between these two states as a matter of personal
>choice (rather like changing hair color) why are you not talking about
>how to become fat? 

You completely lost me here. What are you talking about, and why?
And people -have- changed between these states, take Richard Simmons
for example. 
 
>Are you not implying that fit is better than fat?

I am saying that it is healthier to be fit. I cannot say what is better
or worse for you, or anyone else. It is not my call anyway.
 
>Does it not follow from that that fat is not as good as fit?

Good and bad are personal value judgements, draw your own. Personally,
I'd rather be fit. 
 
>And does it not follow from that that fat people aren't as good as
>people who have made themselves fit?

Again with the value judgements, draw your own, I have no interest in
making value judgements for enyone else.
 
>I simply followed your thoughts to their logical conclusion.

No, you drew your own conclusions, which is fine by me as long as you
do not attribute them to me. And I do not consider a chain of value
judgements the same as a "logical conclusion".
 
>BTW: I agree with you that diets are usually destructive. And no, I 
>haven't filed any discrimination suits. 

That was a half jest, you were just so defensive. Shoulda added a smiley.
:^)
 
>-jen


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism,sci.skeptic,soc.women,soc.men
From: marty@beta.lanl.gov (Martin G. Halvorson)
Subject: Re: Dr. Goldberg Replies to "Patriarchy" Debate
Summary: What's sauce for the goose isn't sauce for the gander
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 21:50:43 GMT

> Brian "Rev. P-K" Siano                                  revpk@cellar.org
> >>>>>>Steven Goldberg (Dept. of Sociology, CUNY) writes:
> > 
> > 1. The attempts (like that of Brian Siano) to refute _Patriarchy_
> > by endless discussions of the (alleged) political (and 
> > psychological) purposes of the theorist are doomed from the 
> > start. A political or psychological bias of a theorist is 
> > relevant only if it introduces error in his theory -- otherwise 
> > it is irrelevant. Siano need merely point out such error and he 
> > can succeed where no amount of *ad hominem* accusations of motive
> > can.
> Sheaffer replied:
I assume the following is a quote of something Robert Sheaffer wrote.
> >  
> >      is published only there. You see, Hrdy's findings are likely
> >      warped by her pro-female leanings, and hence do not fairly
> >      represent the situation of male langurs.

    What I find interesting in this exerpt from Brian's note is the
    following:

	It's OK to invoke bias in refuting a theory if the theory being
	refuted is not in agreement with one's own.

	It's not OK to invoke bias in refuting a theory one agrees with.

    FWIW, I don't know anything about either male or female dominated
    cultures (other than the particular culture I live in).  I just
    happened to read this note and found the above interesting.

    Peace
From: axb39@po.CWRU.Edu (Ann Burlingham)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Mysogynist Bullshit
Date: 30 Dec 1992 16:08:58 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: axb39@po.CWRU.Edu (Ann Burlingham)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc5.ins.cwru.edu


>
>Curiously, women seek medical aid more often than men, even excluding
>gyn/obs visits. It may be true that women have more capacity for endurance,
>but in practice, it would seem that they do not use it. Kinda makes one
>wonder.

I don't see the logic here. Maybe it's like the "women have to be twice as
good as men to be thought half so" thing - how do you know women aren't
enduring more? Checked any domestic violence (i.e., long-term sustained
endurance) statistics lately? 

>
>
-- 
Ann Burlingham                         If this be the best of all possible    
2752 Hampshire Rd., Apt. 3              worlds, what can the rest be like?
Cleveland Heights, Ohio 44106                            Voltaire: Candide
(216) 397-7458
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: jean@cs.cornell.edu (Jean M. Petrosino)
Subject: Re: Language
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Distribution: ]usa
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 16:13:06 GMT

>Jean,

>I can understand that you are concerned about the foul words used to
>describe both women and men.  But you admittedly stated that these were
>not due to a well researched effort.  You have obviously posted the message
>with a theme in mind...the treatment of women.  So you have probably
>avoided mentioning several words to describe men, navaho indians, blacks,
>pakistanis, west indian, liberals, and Armenians.

>In the future, don't expect intelligent discussion when your statements
>show a definite lack of objectivity.  And no, I dont call women pussies,
>i call men that act like women, pussies.

>"I am lost in thought
> as it is such
> unfamiliar territory"

>Pooch

Pardon me for not being elitist enough for your taste.
One man was nice enough to add to my list via email, and pointed out that men 
 insult other men with sexually-connotated language. Either accusing them of 
 being a fag, or something like a 'mother-fucker'. 


Newsgroups: alt.feminism