HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: what is sexist? (was Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Date: 13 Nov 92 12:00:57
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1992Nov6.150355.9849@rtf.bt.co.uk> <BxC8n0.Au9@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
	<lfqj54INN98m@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>
	<38MD03ktbajB00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>
	<MUFFY.92Nov12152904@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<810O03.ybac100@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: jsp@uts.amdahl.com's message of 13 Nov 92 19:23:32 GMT

In article <810O03.ybac100@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James Preston) writes:
>muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

>}In article <38MD03ktbajB00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James Preston) writes:
>}> [...] My dictionary [...]
>}> Similarly, "sexism" is defined as:
>}> "Discrimination by members of one sex against the other, especially by
>}> men agains women, based on the assumption that one sex is superior."
>}> Notice that it clearly says *especially* by men against women, not
>}> exclusively.  And again, no qualifiers about the "non-dominant group".

>}I'm not sure if I agree with this definition, but it certainly puts an
>}interesting light on "reverse sexism," since that would have to be based
>}on the assumption that women are superior.

>You're not sure if you agree with the dictionary definition?  Ok, I
>suppose you're as free to arbitrarily ignore reality as anyone.  Shall
>I next decide that I don't agree with the dictionary definition of "table"
>and start using that word to mean something used to write on paper?

No, dear.  I'm not sure that I agree with *your* dictionary's
definition.  A dictionary I happen to have here (which is not actually
mine) defines sexism thus:

  sexism n. 1. attitudes and institutions, often unconscious, that judge 
  human worth on the grounds of gender or sex roles 2. prejudice or
  discrimination, usu. against women, based on their gender

[...referring to the post he originally responded to about sexism only
being practicable by the majority...]
>[...]  It was a laughably absurd attempt to completely twist 
>those words beyond all bounds of reason.

Well, I didn't say that I agreed with that definition, either (in fact,
I don't).

I think the dictionary definition I just typed in is slightly more in
line with how I define the word.  However, there may be a dictionary
definition that I agree with even more.  Understand?

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,talk.politics.theory,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.classics
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Subject: Re: Plato's Views on Women
Keywords: Plato, politics, women, feminism
Organization: QQQCLC
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 17:40:54 GMT

In article <BxE64p.ID5@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>the answers to philosophical questions are matters of objective fact

	Uh, Brian, did you really mean to say this?

						Kayembee
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: 890530m@dragon.acadiau.ca (Darren MacKenzie)
Subject: Re: getting fired after making sexual harrassment complaint - illegal?
Organization: Acadia University
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 21:44:30 GMT

cfaks@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Alice Sanders) writes:

>I'm looking for information for a woman I know who was put on probation at
>work the day after she made a sexual harrassment complaint against a male
>coworker.  Her supervisor was a woman with whom she got along very well
>until the day after she made the complaint.  She had worked at the company
>for three years and had an excellent work record.  Other women in the
>company also wanted to complain about this harrasser but were afraid.
>This woman took it upon herself to come forward because she was confident
>of her position in the company and so was not afraid.  After being put on
>probation and being under severe stress, she became ill and missed 10 days
>of work out of 60 days, all with sick pay.  She was fired 90 days to the
>day that she had made the complaint, supposedly for missing too much work.
>Later she was told that she did not fit the image of the company.

>Can anyone provide info as to this woman's rights, to what extent her
>treatment was illegal, etc.?  She has gone to the labor board and intends
>to hire an attorney. Any suggestions?  Thank you.

>Alice
> 

Yes...if the company didn't directly fire her for the complaint, but for
SUPPOSEDLY missing too much work (or whatever), then the company is
perfectly in legal rights of doing it (on a technicality).  They can't
prove that she was fired because of the complaint...she was
SUPPOSEDLY fired from other reasons.  I believe another legal possibility
would have been to make things hard for her (without breaking laws), and
sort of FORCING her to quit.  I see this as another possibility.
-Doc

-- 
=============================================================================== The Commodore Amiga 4000 - 24 bit          16,777,216 colors (4096^2)!!         ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Buster: "Say goodnight, Babs."                                                 
Babs  : "Goodnight, Babs."                                                      I'm tiny, I'm toony, and I'm a little looney!                                   ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Darren MacKenzie                                                                ("The Doctor")                                                                  890530m@aucs.acadiau.ca
===============================================================================
From: jrmo@volta.att.com (J.R.Moore)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Sad Day for Liberty
Date: 9 Nov 92 18:09:06 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs

In article <1992Nov7.202854.24075@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>
>Nearly every Libertarian that I've read and talked to essentially says
>this:  "If you're not being hired because you're Jewish, or black, or
>queer, or Hispanic, the only recourse you have is to find an employer
>who will hire you or form your own company or business.  There should
>be no laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, sexual
>orientation, color, religion, ethnic background because such laws take
>away a person's right to freedom of association."
>
>So, Rosa Parks should have just walked or drove a car or better yet
>formed a bus company that didn't force blacks to sit in the back and
>give up seats to whites.
>
I think the difference is that buses are public.  Equal protection
under the law mandates that individuals have equal access to public
services.  Private bus companies would be different of course.

Of course, governement jobs could not be filled on a discriminatory basis.
And, of course, that would not prevent the government only doing business
with non-discriminatory businesses or giving tax advantages for businesses
with fair hiring practices.  The Libertarians as I understand want people
to take personal responsibility for their actions and give people the
freedom to do what they like with their money, body, and property, as
long as they don't use force or fraud on others.  The Libertarians by
and large are the most tolerant of any political party.  You can love, hate
whoever you want, you can say or do anything you like, you can live with
or associate with whoever you like and as long as you don't use force or
fraud, it's no one else's business.  Laws giving advantage to one group 
over another, are strictly forbidden by the constitution (Equal Protection
for all).  For each law that makes life 'better' for the disadvantaged,
more and more liberty is stripped from those who are forced to pay.

Joe Moore
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: penises
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 23:33:12 GMT

In article <7875@transfer.stratus.com> dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber) writes:
>In article <1d7vrlINN72h@gap.caltech.edu>, peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>> lnewton@pvec.bridgewater.ns.ca (LEE NEWTON) writes:
>> >	This is a very serious and mature quetstion. What to women think in 
>> >general on the issue of circumsized penises vs. uncircumsized penises?
>> 
>> I don't think women spend nearly as much time thinking about penises 
>> as men do.
>
>Thank you for the snide response.  How about giving him the benefit of the
>doubt and assuming he had a reason for asking (curiosity if nothing else).

Sure as shit, he had a reason for asking.  He even told us that it was
a very serious and mature question.

Most of the women I know LOVE foreskins.  There, you happy with that
answer?
From: acp@cray.com (Anthony Peterson)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: More Women Than Men Prefer to be Alone
Date: 11 Nov 92 20:01:18 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.

In article <1doj8oINNjkk@news.aero.org> foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
>A news item this morning said that 20% of married men preferred to be home
>alone. However, 50% of married women preferred to be home alone.
>
>Are there other studies similiar to this? What are the reasons for more
>women then men preferreing to be by themselves?
>
	From what's written in the fisrt paragraph how do you arrive
	at the second paragraph. The first paragraph indicates the
	percent of MARRIED men and MARRIED women who prefer to be HOME
	alone.

	(Couldn't have anything to do with who takes care of the kids
	could it? ;*) )

	From that you conclude that that more women than men prefer to
	be BY THEMSELVES.

	If the first paragraph stated that "20% of married men prefer
	to do the driving while 50% of married women prefer to do the
	driving" would you conclude that more men than women prefered
	to walk?
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek)
Subject: Re: Sad Day for Liberty
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 92 18:23:58 GMT

>In article <1992Nov4.163113.27613@athena.cs.uga.edu> carr@athena.cs.uga.edu writes:

>>has risen by (i think) 30 percent. Last month a retarded gay man had been
>>attacked by skin heads on several occasions; a black lesbian moved in with
>>him to protect him: BOTH WERE KILLED IN A FIREBOMBING LATER THE SAME WEEK!!
>>If the proposition had passed, that would not be classified as a hate crime.

How about we classify it as "multiple first-degree homicide"?


Paul Ciszek, pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu | No nation was ever drunk when wine was
                                   | cheap.   -- Thomas Jefferson
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: 891666t@dragon.acadiau.ca (Trish Turliuk)
Subject: Re: Men farting
Organization: Acadia University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 20:53:31 GMT

parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu () writes:

>jth4@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JON T. HUTCHINSON) writes:
>>    just out of curiosity, is it an inborn thing for men to fart and find it
>>    amusing?  My husband likes to fart in bed and then try to pull the covers
>>    over our heads while laughing!  I think he's a disgusting pig!  He has all
>>    ready taught our two sons, aged 3 and 1, that farting is a neat thing to
>>    do, or going back to my original question,were they born this way?

>>    Patti H

Are you implying that you *DON'T* fart? Not ever, Patti? Is this an inborn thing
or do you have to sqeeze you bum to prevent any sort of waft and thereby
politely preventing any sort of incriminating odor?

If so, where do you think this gas goes? Why do you think your body wants to
get rid of it? I'll give you three guesses.

Let all the people in the world unloosen their tight-assed bums and let the hot
air out! Forget being polite or (Dare I say it) LADYLIKE and let your body do
it's *natural* thing. If you don't think you can, fine. Don't hinder others    
from practising natural detoxification(though I must admit, the covers trick of
your husband's is a pretty low and sly manoeuvre).

I never guessed I would be writing about farts todat.

TR.


-- 
Trying to help make a better world in which to live for ALL -who try to help
'even a blind man knows when the sun is shining'
NAMESGALORE-ANONYMOUS:Tish=Kermit=Herb=TR.=Spice=Pecute=FISHIE.FISHIE.FISHIE
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Get a CLUE, a LARGE CLUE
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 00:31:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.191537.18300@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
)In article <1dgphuINNq77@shrike.und.ac.za> dace@shrike.und.ac.za (Roy Dace) writes:
)>
)>Where I come from (and yes, it's quite easy to spot racism here), making
)>unqualified generalisations about members of a specific race is called
)>*RACISM* and is frowned upon in civilised areas! 
)
)Just as a note, many people don't consider this an accurate definition
)of racism.

Ed Nilges, for one.

)  Racism refers to an institutional action that puts power
)in the hands of white and fosters white privilege.  That's why you'll
)hear people saying that African Americans, Hispanics, Asian Americans,
)etc. can't be racist, since they don't have the power to be racist,
)although they can be prejudiced.
)
)(I guess I better steel myself for the nasty comments this post is
)sure to cause.  :))

It's not 100% clear whether you are one of those people who define racism
in this way - at least not yet.  Are you?

Newsgroups: soc.women
From: chrz@tellabs.com (Peter Chrzanowski)
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Organization: Tellabs, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 23:45:22 GMT

In article <1du1alINNhg5@transfer.stratus.com>, dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber) writes:
> In article <1992Nov11.213153.14302@midway.uchicago.edu>, mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:
> > charleen@ADS.COM (Charleen Bunjiovianna) writes:
> > >teri@sdd.hp.com (Teri Tracey) writes:
> > 
> > >>Look, a man who isn't offended by ads that oppress women!  Well, what
> > >>a nice surprise.  
> >  
> > >I am a woman.  I am not oppressed by any advertising.  Your statement
> > >is incorrect.  Care to modify it?
> > 
> > Strictly speaking, her statement is not incorrect on these grounds.  
> > 
> > If I said, "Parvo virus afflicts dogs", you cannot refute this claim
> > by saying, "My dog does not have parvo virus."
> > 
> > OTOH, if she had said "_all_ women are oppressed by advertising", your
> > one exception would indeed serve as a disproof.
> 
> This might be true in a technical sense, but if so, it's very misleading.
> If "X affects women" really meant "X affects *some* women", then the
> statement is basically meaningless, since it doesn't in any way indicate
> what percentage of women are affected.  I think most folks would agree that
> a disease which is fatal to 99% of human beings is a bigger issue than one
> which is fatal to 1% of them; yet as stated, there is no way to tell.
> I'm not a grammarian, so I can't contradict your claim; however I do feel
> that common usage would interpret Teri's statement as Charleen did.
> 
> > rini
> 
> -- 
> 
> #include <std_disclaimer.h>
> 
> Dan S.


ANOTHER INTERPRETATION OF HOW BOTH THESE STATEMENTS


> > 
> > >>    ads that oppress women!  

> > >I am a woman.  I am not oppressed by any advertising.  
> >  

COULD BE CORRECT (even if we assume the modifier "all" before "women") is,

1.  All women are oppressed by these ads.
2.  Charleen, a woman, claims she is not oppressed by the ads 
    BUT SHE IS, she just isn't aware of it. 

Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 21:31:53 GMT

charleen@ADS.COM (Charleen Bunjiovianna) writes:
>teri@sdd.hp.com (Teri Tracey) writes:

>>Look, a man who isn't offended by ads that oppress women!  Well, what
>>a nice surprise.  
 
>I am a woman.  I am not oppressed by any advertising.  Your statement
>is incorrect.  Care to modify it?

Strictly speaking, her statement is not incorrect on these grounds.  

If I said, "Parvo virus afflicts dogs", you cannot refute this claim
by saying, "My dog does not have parvo virus."

OTOH, if she had said "_all_ women are oppressed by advertising", your
one exception would indeed serve as a disproof.

rini
Xref: sparky soc.women:18941 alt.feminism:3820 soc.men:18753
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Women in Combat
Date: 12 Nov 92 20:27:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: gap.1duenrINNij4
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

cathy@octel.com (Cathy Kearns) writes:

>Unfortunately, this will not solve the problem at
>the enlisted club.  All the men will still be at each other's throats
>for a dance with the one woman outside their battalion.  And similiar
>thoughts will go through the women's head over the attention of the
>one civilian man to drop in. 

I myself am looking forward to the day when a woman (or man) can walk
into the enlisted club, and no-one cares whether it's Pt John or
Pt Jane who gets a goofy smile on his/her face.

							--  Michal
Xref: sparky soc.women:19387 alt.feminism:4230 soc.men:19132
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Date: 12 Nov 92 02:21:20 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Virginia

Michael Kagalenko writes:
#I guess only person ready to provide a lot of flattery could become 
#your SO 

Thank you very much for sharing this well reasoned rebuttal to Muffy's
post. 

--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: getting fired after making sexual harrassment complaint - illegal?
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 07:53:20 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.021933.14811@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> cfaks@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Alice Sanders) writes:
>I am curious what others might think about this.  This is the first
>response I got that looked like she really doesn't have recourse except by
>showing that she was coerced to quit.  She didn't quit, though, they fired
>her after three months of harrassment.  They also falsified her review
>records, to look like she had a bad review.  And the harrassment started
>the day after the complaint, despite an excellent 3-year employment
>record.

At the risk of sounding as if I'm giving you the brushoff, it really
doesn't matter what "others" on the net might think.  What matters is
what a competent lawyer (hopefully whose specialty is employees'
rights and/or sexual harassment cases) thinks.  This woman you're
talking about needs to consult a lawyer, not listen to our ramblings
on here.  Please encourage her to do so.
From: lib@cbnews.cb.att.com (Lib)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Am I "exploiting" this woman?
Date: 5 Nov 92 15:37:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnews.1992Nov5.153742.20271
Organization: AT&T

In article <Bx80u8.4zK@ccu.umanitoba.ca> kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts) writes:
>
>What a person reads, wherever they read it, should be their own business.  I
>still don't understand why someone should be upset with that woman for
>reading an erotic magazine.  Granted, it is easy to come up with specific
>incidences, but I don't think it is valid as a general rule.
   
Not at work. You're on private property with other people and
those other people have rights.
 
>You still have not explained why a calender or poster is inherently bad.
>You have offered the suggestion of role reversal, but that doesn't help much.
>I don't have an inherent fear or hate of beef-cake pictures.  I would really
>like it if you could articulate why Chip & Dale calenders are the most
>evil things in the world.

Calendars or posters are not, of course, inherently bad. Those that depict 
people as sex objects may create or contribute to a hostile environment.
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: A Soc.Presidential Election Poll! Please Respond!
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 00:19:46 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.224952.23692@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
)In article <1992Nov2.170238.10284@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:

)>However, 'breast cancer' appears to me to be being funded well beyond any
)>comparable form of cancer (in both absolute terms and fundings per death)-
)>and is being used as a 'political football'.
)
)Breast cancer is the leading cancer in women.  It's second only to
)lung cancer in the number of female victims it claims.
)
)We still don't know why women get breast cancer.  For a long time, fat
)intake and obesity were thought to influence it (from the breast
)cancer rates in different countries).  However, a recent study found
)no correlation in American women. 

And it's still funded *much* more than comparable cancers that affect
both genders.

)>The breast cancer funding issue alone isn't significant alone, all by
)>itself, but is symptomatic of the broader problems with Clinton's allegedly
)>"pro-woman" agenda, which unfortunately (IMO) winds up to be "pro-woman" at
)>the expense of men in many cases.
)
)I don't see where Clinton is anti-men.  I know that his view on "dead
)beat dads" has raised the hackles of many here on the net.

I see that as a definite area where things will get worse for men and the
primary thing I have against Clinton (Draconian Campaign Against Deadbeat
Dads - many of whom are poor.  So they will not only not get help, they
will get jumped on - if Clinton follows through with his promises.)

In other areas, I forsee increased federal spending on the poor - as long
as they are women or minorities, that is. And taxes going up to pay for it
and/or the debt increasing, naturally.


)I've heard the same claims made for AIDS funding (that it's far beyond
)what is needed). 

I find it difficult to judge the issues there.  I certainly feel that
a comparison strictly based on funding per death is NOT appropriate for
AIDS - I think it is reasonably fair to compare fundings per death
for different forms of cancer, however.

Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 06:14:54 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.223212.10549@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>In article <1dca56INNgi7@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:

[the thread is about father notification, which I imagine you guessed 
from the title]

>>No one is disputing that.  The question is, should it be the *law*.

>With suitable exceptions, yes.

I suppose you have some support (figures or examples would be nice) that
this proposed legislation will have some deterrent effect?  Or do you want
revenge?  

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                   We are the Cro-Magnon of the future!
Newsgroups: soc.women,talk.politics.theory,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.classics