HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Arlen Specter vs Lynn Yeakle race and feminists, etc.
Date: 30 Sep 92 17:00:14 GMT
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <garry-300992095005@nulla-nulla.rice.edu>, garry@rice.edu (Garry C. King) writes:
> After all this time, I'm still highly amused by the Thomas hearings and the
> resulting fallout.

> It seems that much of the displeasure following the hearings was due to the
> fact that Prof. Hill was not accorded some special deference due to
> womanhood.  She went to the hearings to oppose Thomas.  Did people expect
> the Republicans to smile, thank her kindly, then quickly ditch their
> nominee ?  Instead, they gave her a moderately tough time, as any threat to
> the nomination would have received.  It was a profoundly equalitarian
> stance.

I always try to keep in mind that both Arlen and Anita are lawyers; have
worked in Government; and knew what they were doing.

If Anita was not a lawyer, it might have had a greater impact upon me.

Terry
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Value of Womens' Lives (was: _Backlash_)
Organization: LLNL
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 19:22:33 GMT

In article <6756@transfer.stratus.com> dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber) writes:
>In article <1992Sep25.022038.3821@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

@ [deleted]

@  	And the examples, WWII and the Vietnam War, were not very
@  typical of wars throughout history, many of which were fought to
@  acquire territory and material wealth.

: Loren, are you deliberately trying to be obtuse?  And you're right, they
: weren't typical of wars throughout history.  Wars back through the Middle
: Ages were bloodier, and if you were wounded more than trivially, you were
: dead, due to lack of medical care.  One more time, what we're objecting to
: is that men have been sold a bill of goods throughout history that it is
: their privilege, honor, whatever which justifies their being sent out to
: die horribly.  When done correctly, they're even proud of this "privilege".
: Given this, please explain what frigging difference it makes *why* they're
: being sent out to die.

	I can see you've never heard of mercenaries...

	There have been many cases of _willing_ participants in
warfare.

	Here is one case of a would-be willing participant: I have a
relative who wants to go back to Yugoslavia and become a partisan on
the side of Bosnia to fight the Serbs.

	Your argument is a bit stronger in the case of drafted
soldiers; in that case, the situation is a bit more complex. In some
cases, it is a case of some men exploiting other men as "cannon
fodder". Even here, I think it's still a question of what sex is
likely to be the stronger one.

	Look, if you don't like that situation, then push for all
combat roles to be open to both sexes.

Xref: sparky alt.feminism:1812 soc.men:17136
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Choice for men: moving beyond anti-feminism
Date: 30 Sep 1992 17:09:39 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

>>I (singular) maintain that men (or rather, most men) are not 
>>particularly vocal in objecting to contraceptives that "impinge"
>>on women.  Most men seem to feel that it is preferable for the
>>woman to take the Pill (and perhaps suffer headaches, etc.) then 
>>for themselves to put up with the inconvenience of donning a condom.

>Are you implying that you think it is preferable for a man to put
>up with the inconvenience of a condom than it is for a woman to put
>up with the inconvenience of the Pill?

I am not implying anything about what people *should* do.  I am merely
stating an observation on how some people behave.

>Are you implying that you object to using the Pill because it
>makes some people "perhaps suffer headaches, etc."?

I have posted before that *I* do not use the Pill, in part because 
it gives *me* headaches.  What other people do is (hopefully) their 
own business, although hopefully something which they discuss with 
their partners.

						--  Michal
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic)
Subject: Re: statistics and questions
Organization: TRW Financial Systems
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 13:22:17 GMT

zen@death.Sun.COM (d) writes:
>
>  Ok, anti-feminists... here's your chance.  Answer some questions?

> (stats re: women held in inferior position in society)

>
>  Yeah.  Women have it made today.  Heck, it's *men* who need help, not
>women.
>
> -- d

Of course, d, your "argument" proves they deserve no consideration whatever,
well & clearly thought. Thanks for a balanced discussion.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: The 75% woman
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 92 04:22:49 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.231219.18594@ccu.umanitoba.ca> kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts) writes:
>What would the effect on society, culture and evolution be if women comprised
>75% of the population?  Would women today be better off today?  In a stronger
>position?

I say that there would be good points and bad.  If women, making up
75% of the population, would have comparable political power, certain
conditions would be better for women (jobs, childcare, etc.).  There
may actually be less violence for a while--I think violence is mostly
social and cultural, and women are conditioned to be less violent.

I think there would be an intense competition for men, women would
share men in romantic/sexual relationships, or more women would
discover their bisexuality.  Probably variations of all three.  (I've
read some stuff on the net, purely anecdotal, which suggests more
women than men are bisexual.  That seems to be true, from my own
experience.  Of course, this is my bias, since I'm convinced that most
people are bisexual and become strictly heterosexual by society's
conditioning.)

>	One of my lines of thought is that this would put women at an even
>larger disadvantage.  A superficial glance at evolution and family units
>could suggest that the remaining men would become even more valuable, 
>increasing their negotiating ability in cultural and domestic
agreements.

I'm not sure this is true.  There seem to be situations in history
where women were quite rare (the gold rush days here in California,
when Australia was being settled, as examples) and women didn't seem
to have any real increase in power.  Perhaps they had a wider, better
choice of husbands, but that seems to have been it.

In fact, just the opposite might occur.  Men may become too precious a
comodity to be left alone and may be rationed out to women.

>	Another implication could be an increase in female infanticide until
>until the populations equalized.  This would be a very sad, but somehow
>consistent, mechanism within society.  This leads to the aside;  Is the
>current practice of infanticide a result of some cultural belief that males
>have more inherent value, or a social belief that the average male will make
>a larger contribution to the tangible success of a primary social unit?

I'm not sure how you can separate a cultural belief from a social
belief.  If the woman leaves her family and goes to her mate's home,
she may represent a loss of service to her own family, thus women are
less valuable than men.  Is that cultural or social?

Is the ratio of men to women that off in places that do still
practice female infanticide?  

>	Finally, is there some critical threshold for the ratio of 
>males:females, above which evolution and social needs would force cultures
>where females have the primary dominant role?

I don't know.  Homo sapiens is still a very young species, so it's
hard to say how much an effect evolution has had so far.

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: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 17:24:00 GMT

(Kiiskil{ Sami) writes:
> (Rini Clarkberg) writes:
>
>> Tradition?  Sexism?  Love?  Personal choice?  How this relates to any of the 
>> previous discussion is beyond me.
>
>The discussion seemed to handle only the subject that how much the man should
>pay for results of his actions, I just tried to offer alternative
>choices of taking care of the child. Obviously the question then isn't how
>to take care of it but how the woman can get as much money as
>possible, which is quite common to 'em.

Wrong discussion, buddy.  I was not in a discussion of how much the man 
should pay for results of his actions.  I'm all for alternative choices in
taking care of the child.

>> >> Boy, are you... (holding my toungue).  "Real feminists"?  Where on earth
>> >> was that defined for you?  I challenge you to find one radical, extremist,
>
>Even reading this newsgroup a while will show some examples.

Oh please, share with me one statement that says that men should have no 
rights, since you persist on insisting it is so rampant.

>> Glad to see you retract your statement.  Now if we could only get you
>> to think *before* you post -- we'd be getting somewhere.
>
>Nope. 

Damn, damn, damn.  I was really hoping too!


rini
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: rogue@cellar.org (Rachel McGregor)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Choice for men
Date: 30 Sep 92 06:09:13 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system

Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis) writes:

> In article <1992Sep25.175612.6852@leland.Stanford.EDU>
> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
> 
> > You think it should be at the top of the list, but the draft hasn't
> > been used in this country for 20 years.  Feminists may just think
> > there are more pressing concerns than to address an issue that hasn't
> > been an issue for 20 years.
> 
> Perhaps that's because (female) feminists haven't been drafted, and
> haven't had to worry about the possibility of being drafted.  What was
> it they said about men during the Hill/Thomas fiasco?  Something like
> "They just don't understand."
> 
As a sidebar, might the fact that women aren't included in the draft have
anything to do with female volunteers being barred from combat positions?

There *is* a draft, but it doesn't get activated unless there's a war on.

           
    Rachel McGregor (rogue@cellar.org)  research contractor, modem junkie
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
 The Cellar BBS: 215/654-9184: quickly becoming the Net's most infamous site
 If you don't believe that, look for rogue, darling, richh, techie, or revpk
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:1677 soc.men:16977 soc.women:17087
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Value of Womens' Lives (was: _Backlash_)
From: <RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Sunday, 27 Sep 1992 17:58:16 EDT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

-From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
-
-Do you think that the government has made a calculated move,
-to maintain as much of a draft as is possible without providing
-enough grounds for a protest movement to form?
-
-Frankly, having passed the usual age of draftability and having
-started a family, I am more worried about other social imbalances,
-but I would not just slough off the registration issue as trivial.
-I'm not so sure it will be gone when my sons reach 18.  And I want
-my sons' lives to be valued as much by society as any woman's.
-
-Don

   I completely agree with this.  Having long ago passed the age when
I was myself vulnerable, it is still important to me that men not be
treated as second class citizens.  I know this is all a matter of fashion
and fashions change.  But human lives are not the same as skirt lengths
or cuffs and it is terrible when actual human lives are harmed by dogma.

   During the Vietnam war, 58,000 men died and many more were injured.
According to the New York Review of Books, twice as many men committed
suicide after the war as were killed during it.  BUT, some years after the
war, the Boston Globe, writing about job perferences for veterans, said
that veteran job preferences were not acceptable because "women had been
denied the oppportunity to be veterans"!!   This is just insane.
I suppose we should be grateful that they did not complain about the
sexist practice of giving free funerals to the men killed in Vietnam.

  Rohit Parikh
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mitchell@cs.uchicago.edu (Mitchell Marks)
Subject: Re: _Backlash_ ( Sort of )
Reply-To: mitchell@cs.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computer Science
	<1992Sep29.164211.26113@ils.nwu.edu>
	<1992Oct2.225130.6264@speedy.aero.org>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 23:56:55 GMT

>>>>> "MN" == Miriam Nadel <nadel@attatash.aero.org> writes:

  MN> Faludi's account of the Angela Carder case matches the news
  MN> stories from the time quite well.  [...]  Furthermore, her own
  MN> physicians stated that they thought the surgery ill-advised.
  MN> (As I recall, a hospital administrator brought the suit to force
  MN> the doctors to perform the surgery.)

If I correctly recall it from Faludi's account, the distinction among
the doctors was between her oncologist and the ob/gyns.  The latter
were saying that she was terminally ill, and trying to count that as a
factor.  But the oncologist had seen her in the past come up with
remissions/improvements when least expected, and resisted just writing
her off this time.


--
Mitch Marks    mitchell@cs.uchicago.edu
"The catch is, the {\it cetera} are seldom {\it paria}."
  -- Ronald de Sousa
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: _Backlash_ ( Sort of )
Date: 5 Oct 92 18:10:42 GMT
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences

In article <1992Oct2.225130.6264@speedy.aero.org> nadel@attatash.aero.org (Miriam Nadel) writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.164211.26113@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>>In article <oneil.717530535@cwis> oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil) writes:
>>>She was still able to make her own decision
>>>and did so quite clearly when she said she didn't want the cesarean to 
>>>take place.  Her family was stilla ble to make the decision and they said
>>>no as well.  The decision was made with NO consideration for her life --
>>>only in consideration of the fetus inside of her.  So, yes, it was because
>>>she was a woman.  
>>
>>Excuse me.  In the statement I read, it was not stated that the woman
>>"rejected" the cesarean; rather it says it was done without her permission.
>>It could well have been the case that the woman was unconcious and incapable
>>of making the decision.  It *could* even be that the family was not there and
>>there was no time to contact them because the decision had to be made *NOW*.
>>It *might* not even have been bad medical treatment as much as a tragic outcome
>>to a no-win decision.
>
>Faludi's account of the Angela Carder case matches the news stories from the
>time quite well.  Carder was unconscious part of the time but during the
>period when she was conscious, she indicated that she did not want the
>Caesarean.  The judge at the appeal dismissed this because she was under
>medication and he considered her not to be lucid.  However, her husband
>explicitly refused the surgery.  Furthermore, her own physicians stated that
>they thought the surgery ill-advised.  (As I recall, a hospital administrator
>brought the suit to force the doctors to perform the surgery.)  In addition,
>the fetus was 24 weeks, which is marginally viable.  There was no good
>medical reason for the haste.  As far as I'm concerned, Judge Earl Smith
>murdered Angela Carder.

Open mouth.  Insert foot.  Chew vigorously.
Assuming the above is more correct than my hypothetical rendition of a case I'm
not familiar with, I'd have to agree with that last, but would think the admin
at least an accessory, if not equally responsible.
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 22:07:50 GMT

In article <718229403@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu
(Hillel) writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.214715.26119@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu 
>(Richard Lynch) writes:

>I think that a liberal like Johnson sent 500,000 drafted men to Vietnam,

Johnson only sent soldiers over for the first few years of the war.

>Nixon stopped the draft

No, Nixon first sent Americans to Vietnam for four years (probably
more than Johnson; I don't remember the exact numbers).  Then the
draft expired, and was not renewed.  I don't recall Nixon attempting
to end the draft; he could have stopped it by Executive Order, but he
didn't.

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Observations from male studentnt
Date: 29 Sep 92 17:00:20
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<CINDY.92Sep20171742@meshugge.media.mit.edu>
	<1992Sep25.214541.15830@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>
	<ZEN.92Sep25173538@death.corp.sun.com>
	<1992Sep29.005352.2047@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>
	<MUFFY.92Sep28180535@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<1992Sep29.234427.23775@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov's message of Tue, 29 Sep 1992 23:44:27 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.234427.23775@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes) writes:
>muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>If you were wearing a tight pair of jeans, for example, should the 
>>rapist get a reduced sentence or be set free because you were 
>>"provoking" the rape?
>>[and more questions]

>There are a LOT of assumptions in this question which prevent me from
>answering it to your satisfaction. Please rephrase this question. 

>Anyone wearing a particular manner of dress is responsible for being 
>*aware* of their effect upon the people surrounding them.

Okay, I'll try to rephrase it.  Assuming that it is the case that you
are attractive to other people in a pair of tight jeans, and that you
know this, and that you are raped while wearing such clothing, do you
think that the rapist should get a lighter sentence, since you are
partially responsible for the effects of your clothing on this person?
If not, then what does it matter *how* you are dressed?  If so, then how
much lighter should the sentence be for what sorts of dress?

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
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (Rini Clarkberg)
Subject: Re: Women as Victims (was:_Backlash_ ( Sort of ))
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 14:52:09 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.202746.23453@netcom.com> 
sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:

>Come off it. Now that "all are equal" but women are "more equal than men"
>(having special preferences, special legal rights, etc), it's men who
>are being victimized far more often by the power structure, which will
>invariably bend over backwards to accomodate any demand that is labelled
>as "feminist."

Bend over backwards?  Let's see.  The two 'feminist' causes that come to
mind for me are the ERA and the right to an abortion....  I never did
see the power structure "bend over backwards" on either of those....

You are right in that the power structure often does make a special
effort to "protect women", but I think that that has as much to do with
the chivalrous idea that women *need* special protection as it does to
do with any feminist causes...

In my experience, you'll find a mighty condemnation of wife abuse and
a light dismissal of husband abuse among both feminists and old boys,
democrats and republicans, old and young.  It's endemic in our society.
It's a problem.  But the feminists did not *make* it so.

I think your finger pointing is a wee bit unfair. 

>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.

I'll fight for the balance of power under the name 'feminist', thanks.  

rini

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic)
Subject: Re: Observations from male studentnt
Organization: TRW Financial Systems
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 13:18:26 GMT

garry@rice.edu (Garry C. King) writes:

>Speaking of Farrell, I find the man remarkably insightful and am surprised
>that he isn't a major fixture on talk shows etc.

>................................  The guy has guts.

>Garry.

Seconded. Farrell is okay.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Choice for men: moving beyond anti-feminism
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 92 01:41:36 GMT

In article <1aicf4INN8uo@bigboote.WPI.EDU> walkerr@wpi.WPI.EDU (Robert A Walker) writes:
>In article <1adhr7INN38b@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>But how can you ever be *absolutely* sure "where your partner has been"?
>>
>	You don't know were they have been.  But if they won't tell you or
>you don't trust them why would you want to have sex with them.  IF they've
>"been around the block"  then if they said "hey I've had a few" pardon the 
>crude terms,  then at least you know they aren't lying and then you can 
>use a condom.  I was just saying that if they aren't honest to you, then
>you shouldn't havve sex with them,  not that everyone shoudl know what
>their partner has for disease, because they can't but if your partner says
>that there is a risk then defianately use a condom.  
>
>Hope you can understand that.

I understand what you're saying, but I don't think it helps much.
People lie to each other all the time.  They may say they've had fewer
partners than they have because the numbers seem too high, they may
say they've only had partners of the opposite sex, they may say they
practiced safe sex when they didn't.  The safest thing is to practice
safe sex, that way if it turns out your partner was lying, you only
feel betrayed, and you don't have to worry about dealing with a STD.