HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: women marines/in military
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 21:37:24 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.094143.349@mtek.com> bud@mtek.com writes:
>Given that the average educational attainment of U.S. military 
>members is well above that of American civilian industry, it does
>seem curious that a few persons could so easily press themselves to
>the conclusion that military people -- and the military in general --
>operate mindlessly (unlike themselves, presumably), when it is the
>fundamental (if doubtful) assumption of the education model that more
>enlightenment comes with more learning. Which begs an obvious question.

Well, you show me the logic behind rules which say that a female Army
officer can carry an umbrella and a male Army officer can't and I'll
say it isn't a mindless custom that has nothing to do with logic.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: bud@mtek.com (Bud Hovell)
Subject: Re: women marines/in military
Reply-To: bud@mtek.com
Organization: MTEK International, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 09:41:43 GMT

Given that the average educational attainment of U.S. military 
members is well above that of American civilian industry, it does
seem curious that a few persons could so easily press themselves to
the conclusion that military people -- and the military in general --
operate mindlessly (unlike themselves, presumably), when it is the
fundamental (if doubtful) assumption of the education model that more
enlightenment comes with more learning. Which begs an obvious question.
________________________________________________________________
bud@mtek.com ... uunet!m2xenix!mtek!bud ... bud@rigel.cs.pdx.edu
MTEK International, Inc.             Throughput Technology Corp.
Walk the talk.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: davew@willow03.cray.com (Dave Wagner)
Subject: Re: Gays in the military
Originator: davew@willow03
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 16 Dec 92 15:50:06 CST


In article <jhansen.724536693@convex.convex.com>, jhansen@convex.com (James Hansen) writes:
> In <BzC3MC.M5E@ais.org> tim@ais.org (Tim Tyler) writes:
> 
> > The same holds true for gay males in men's locker rooms.  They're going to
> >'look,' & the other men have the right to be concerned about this.
> > 
> >   Of course everyone knows there are already gays in the military, but the
> >difference is that they're 'locked in the closet' & as such their discretion
> >would not result in the straight soldiers feeling queasy in the common
> >showers.
> 
> We are also in public showers.  Those who know I am gay don't seem too
> bothered by my presence.
> 
> This "queasiness" you refer to has more to do with the straight man's
> insecurities and the (incorrect) assumption that all gay men can't
> anymore control their sexual urges than a male dog after a bitch in
> heat.
> 
But isn't that same (incorrect) assumption driving the seperate facilities
for men/women?  Maybe not.  I just have trouble rationalizing the two.  If
it's behavior that should be judged (like unwanted sexual advances) can't
this be the same with men vs. women?  Actually, I'd like to hear some views
of women?  Would you have more/less/the same comfort level showering with
openly gay women as (straight) men.  Why?  But what if the men were happily
married and made no sexual advances?  Shouldn't they be judged on behavior?

Just trying to come up with an internally consistant set of 'rules'.
-- 
Dave Wagner                               "Tongue-tied and twisted,
davew@cray.com , uunet!cray!davew          just an earth-bound misfit, I"
(612) 683-5393                                  -- Pink Floyd
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: htilney@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: Gays in the military
Organization: Clark University
Date: 16 DEC 92 02:40:49 GMT

How can people claim to be opposed to this because of "threatened morale?"
In light of the Tailhook scandal, I'd say that women in the military have
a legitimate case to ban straight men with this reasoning. At least they
would have an actual event as a point of reference.

HWT
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: pyotr@halcyon.com (Peter D. Hampe)
Subject: Re: ""Politically correct""
Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. (206) 455-3505
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 15:48:57 GMT

Okay, here we go again.

In short "Politically Correct" is an unquestionable catechism
containing the orthodox thought.  It is sometimes refered to
as the Party Line, the Orthodox doctrine, the right beliefs,
socially acceptable.  It is not open to discussion in public, and rarely
in private.  Those who hold the wrong position, regardless of the
logic behind their position, are defacto "bad people", usually 
referred to as 'sinners', deviationist, capitalist roaders,
heretics, wreckers, boll weevel democrats, reaganites, or Soft on
Communism. (Fascist, racist, sexist, ageist, heightist, handedist
are furthur fulminations.)

"Politically Corrrect" the term has its roots in the Trotskite 
Reds of the 20's and 30's, and is a derogatory statement,
usually of the form "Comrade X's statements are politically
correct, but thetain a bourgeious mentality." (i.e. They
don't 'get it'.)

It was very often used humourously, as in "I don't care
if it isn't Politiaclly Correct - I am going to have a
tossed salad / hamburger / bubble bath / [generally
unaccepted behavior]".

The conjugation of the noun is that
I act from a understanding of the revolutionary implications
of the class struggle as revealled by Marx / Lenin and the
central committee.
You act from a doctrinaire reading of the journals.
They are merely politcially correct.

(or I do it from true belief, you do it because it is the
right thing, they are following a check list)

The current movement labeled PC is a totalitarian movement,
in the Orwellian sense.  By redefining the language one can
quickly flushout the double plus ungood crimethinker.


-- 
Pyotr aka Peter D. Hampe : eka pyotr@halcyon.com
Next Months Panel Topic: "Us and Them: Eliminating Them."
EOF
-- 
Pyotr aka Peter D. Hampe : eka pyotr@halcyon.com
Next Months Panel Topic: "Us and Them: Eliminating Them."
EOF
From: tvorst@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Tommy Che Vorst)
Subject: Rush
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 06:37:05 GMT

Sorry to Simon and other fans of America's favourite fascist, but here goes:

Rush Limbaugh and his programs represent the latest wave in television:
the disguised infomercial.  It is simply an extended advertisement, like
the Blue Blocker show, or that moronic steamer-thing.  Unlike these ads,
however, which sell something, "Rush" is simply the buying of air time for
the purpose of spreading outdated political ideas by some idiots who
pathetically cling to the past world of 50s sitcoms and "Better Dead than
Red!"

Militantly Anti-PC (but not gullible enough to blindly believe everyone who
says they are, too),

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
  Tommy ( Yogi )                              Dept. of English, UofM
                (the REAL UofM - nyaaaah Vid! (Minn.)) 
                     email:  tvorst@ccu.umanitoba.ca  
            ....residences in Canada, France, and Holland.
                       "YAAH! DEATH TO OATMEAL!"
                   Remember: it's just my opinion.

+------------------------------------------------------------------------+ 


 
 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: htilney@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: ""Politically correct""
Organization: Clark University
Date: 16 DEC 92 02:35:21 GMT

Was this term intended to be self-contradicting?
One would think that such an idea would imply "pluralism," or the
acceptance of a variety of social/political viewpoints. But the word
"correct" in terms of an ideology seems to promote a more narrow-minded
way of thinking. It reminds me of so-called liberals I met in school, who
were actually quite conservative in their tolerance of differing views.
"I'm liberal, and you better be like me or you're wrong!"

I suppose "politically correct" was meant to refer to a more limited
number of ideas (environment, etc.).

By the way, I'm new to this newsgroup, and I hope rambling is acceptable.

Bart
From: wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Patrick Chester)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: women marines/in military
Date: 16 Dec 92 18:37:16 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

In article <1992Dec12.010649.14468@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
]In article <merlyn.724047346@digibd> merlyn@digibd.digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes:
]>hillyard@msc.cornell.edu writes:
]>>General cleanliness.  You don't want people mucking around in the trenches
]>>with long hair.  (May help with lice and such also.)
]>
]>Possibly, but I don't see the military shaving off pubic hair.
]>
]>>Is generally more functional.  While repairing the tank/helicopter/etc you
]>>don't have to worry about hair getting caught in the gearing and dragging
]>>you with it.
]>
]>Why can women (who also work on machinery) wear their hair longer?
]>
]>Also, are higher-ranking personnel allowed to wear their hair longer?
]>Seems like the skinhead look is mostly among the grunts.
]
]I think it's just one of those weird things that the military does
]because that's the way the military does it (translation:  no real
]reason).

Hmm.. That does have some merit. :)
 
]For example, the Army allows female military personnel in uniform to
]carry umbrellas, while the men can't.  The only thing I can figure out
]is that a man carrying an umbrella doesn't look as macho as one just
]being rained on.  Since women can't be macho (;)), they're allowed to
]carry umbrellas.

I don't know about the army but the Air Force does allow males to carry 
unbrellas while in uniform. They have to be a dark blue or black color (No
pink and yellow polka dots :) but they can carry umbrellas. Guess the 
Air Force is more practical about some things than it's ancestor service.
 
]I seem to remember a rule about men in uniform not being able to carry
]infants, but I can't swear to it.

I have doubts about that.


-- 
Patrick Chester            |----------------------------------------------------
wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu |"The earth is too fragile a basket in which to keep
Politically Incorrect      |  all your eggs." Robert A. Heinlein
Future Lunar Colonist      |"The meek can *have* the Earth. The rest of us are 
#^%$!! Militarist          |  going to the stars." Robert A. Heinlein
(Of the Sun Tzu mentality) |----------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: tim@ais.org (Tim Tyler)
Subject: Re: Gays in the military
Organization: UMCC
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 04:10:58 GMT

   The way I see it is this:
 
    Men are not allowed to walk around in female locker rooms while women
are in there showering/dressing/etc. for the reason that men will 'look,' &
this will bother the women.  It doesn't matter if the man is happily married
or not, most men couldn't help but 'look' (or sneak a peek).  Even if they
don't look, their presence would clearly cause consternation among the
females.
 
 The same holds true for gay males in men's locker rooms.  They're going to
'look,' & the other men have the right to be concerned about this.
 
   Of course everyone knows there are already gays in the military, but the
difference is that they're 'locked in the closet' & as such their discretion
would not result in the straight soldiers feeling queasy in the common
showers.


-- 
 Tim Tyler      Internet: tim@ais.org  MCI Mail: 442-5735 
P.O. Box 443    C$erve: 72571,1005  DDN: Tyler@Dockmaster.ncsc.mil
Ypsilanti MI    Packet: KA8VIR @KA8UNZ.#SEMI.MI.USA.NA
48197
From: merlyn@digibd.digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: women marines/in military
Date: 15 Dec 92 02:15:40 GMT
Organization: DigiBoard, Incorporated, Eden Prairie,MN

wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Patrick Chester) writes:
>In article <merlyn.724047346@digibd> merlyn@digibd.digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes:
>]hillyard@msc.cornell.edu writes:
>][hair length]
>]>> Still haven't heard any *reasons* as such.

>]>General cleanliness.  You don't want people mucking around in the trenches
>]>with long hair.  (May help with lice and such also.)

>]Possibly, but I don't see the military shaving off pubic hair.

>Cheap. But I'll try to answer it. Maybe because pubic hair isn't exposed
>quite as much as other concentrations of hair?

EEewww, that makes it worse.  Aren't cooties still a problem?

>]>Is generally more functional.  While repairing the tank/helicopter/etc you
>]>don't have to worry about hair getting caught in the gearing and dragging
>]>you with it.

>]Why can women (who also work on machinery) wear their hair longer?

>Women can have longer hair. However, they must pin it up while in uniform.

Then so could men with longer hair.  Or use some other method if longer
hair were a danger.  If this is used as an argument, you have to explain
why women can wear a more "dangerous" length.

>]Also, are higher-ranking personnel allowed to wear their hair longer?
>]Seems like the skinhead look is mostly among the grunts.

>Which services are you specifically refering to? The Marines seem to be all
>shaven regardless of rank. At least all the ones I've seen have and these 
>were officers.

This is just a general impression I have; Marines *do* seem to be the most
shaven.   Another poster said sailors could have beards.  Don't you get
shaved when entering the Army, but you can grow it longer after that?

Many official "reasons" for things military just seem to be rationalizations.

---
Merlyn LeRoy
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Call/Fax/Write Fernandez
Date: 18 Dec 1992 16:01:18 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

glp@fig.citib.com (Greg Parkinson) writes:
> On church property they can say whatever they want. 
> Religious prejudice has no place in secular public
> education.

Sounds an awful lot like:
"On queer property they can say whatever they want.
But queer propaganda has no place in secular public 
education." 

It seems both sides have an equally hard time realizing 
there are many ways to look at things. 

Walter
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Fam
Date: 17 Dec 1992 14:32:28 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

The Dreamer <ASG102@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>      First of all, hiring quotas are illegal except in the case of adverse
> impact (ex. an entirely white company).  In this case, the company will be
> oredered by a court to hire minorities to even the balance.

My wife works in HR, and companies are very aware of "representative" hiring; 
they don't want to let there be *any* chance of appearing to discriminate, 
so they will sometimes take *other* than the best candidate for a job to 
maintain that.  

>      What we ask for is that, all other things considered, we have the same
> chance as anyone else to be hired.

No one can argue with that approach.  Has there been any discussion of adding 
this to an official statement-of-position by the gay-rights lobby?  If it were 
made crystal-clear that there was no desire for minority status (and quotas) 
that would effectively obsolete the wording of Col#2, which is likely to be 
used in other states.   


Walter Smith
smithw@cs.itc.hp.com
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Military Alternative Lifestyles??
Date: 18 Dec 1992 21:11:28 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <BzGJD5.HsG@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins) writes:
|> owen@autodesk.com (D. Owen Rowley) writes:
|> 
|> >All this stuff about Queers in the military is a dodge.
|> >There always have been queers in the military, there always will be.
|> >All that is being proposed is that we don't throw out people.
|> >The Military will not see a flood of queers showing up to be signed
|> >up, all that will happen is that the government will be recognising a
|> >reality.
|> 
|> Wrong.  They already recognize the reality by prohibiting it.  What the
|> Bozone Brothers want to do is force the military to unconditionally accept
|> homosexuality as a normal and perfectly acceptable lifestyle.

Do you mean that evry time the Armed Forces accept a recruit, they 
accept his lifestyle as "normal and perfectly acceptable"?    I think 
that's going to come as a bit of a surprize to some people out there.

What you have written here is a large part of what's wrong with the
arguments of many bigots.    They insist that if you let person X into
the Armed Forces, teach school, claim spousal health insurance, or for
all I know, borrow a library book, then in some way an "authority" has
ruled on that person's "lifestyle" and found it "normal and perfectly 
acceptable"

Well, this may come as a bit of a blow to you, but I'm not very 
interested in having the Great and the Good pronounce on my lifestyle.   
As long as it suits me, and I pay my bills and don't break any laws, 
that ought to be the end of it.

Instead of imagining that they are pronouncing on my lifestyle, what
these "authorities" have to get through their heads is that my lifestyle
is usually *irrelevant* to the job I do.

No-one is asking Colin Powell's approval of their private life.   They
are asking Colin Powell to stay *out* of their private life.

jon.
From: gordon@lugh.think.com (gordon linoff)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Owen Layne Watson should stop flaming!
Date: 15 Dec 92 13:28:26
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Distribution: na
	<1992Dec15.144318.48536@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <BzB7I3.24q@rice.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: lugh.think.com
In-reply-to: patrick@is.rice.edu's message of Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:37:14 GMT

In article <BzB7I3.24q@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
	. . .

   Not proud enough to even hide his name, either -- using the "v" option in
   rn, it's easy to see we're dealing with one olw7845@zeus.tamu.edu, a/k/a
   Zeke E. Pez.  I wouldn't recommend mail-bombing him, or anything similarly
   juvenile, though -- he has a right to his opinion, however regressive it is,
   and besides, why shouldn't we sit back and let *him* do all the work of
   destroying what little credibility he has in this newsgroup?  I know I have
   other more important things to attend to than the homophobic ravings of some
   wet-behind-the-ears Corps wanna-be...

Actually, on some earlier postings, he did leave his name:

	Sender: olw7845@zeus.tamu.edu (WATSON, OWEN LAYNE)

Oops.

You always have to be careful when mailbombing silly
messages like his -- because the owner of the account may
not have sent the message.  Since Owen keeps posting,
though, he's probably doing so from his own account.

I do think that he needs a lesson in network etiquette,
which means that people should not post to news groups they
are not interested in and should refrain from intentionally
starting flame wars.  Email to him or the postmaster at his
site (postmaster@zerus.tamu.edu) can get this message
across.

--gordon
From: ric@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Graffiti 404-972-4999)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: WHY?
Date: 17 Dec 1992 22:38:55 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu
Summary: We aren't.

In article <92352.003601KXS137@psuvm.psu.edu> <KXS137@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>Why are we the only animals that are attracted to the same sex...

We aren't. Read a book.


-- 
 -Ric     __                       __                                 __
          \/   ric@gnu.ai.mit.edu  \/   Graffiti BBS  404 972-4999    \/
                 GEnie: GRAFFITI      PO Box 3176, Lithonia GA 30058

Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Call/Fax/Write Fernandez
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Turkey Division
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 18:50:58 GMT

In article <1gvaqbINN66u@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:

>Don't infer that my "Sounds an awful lot like" is actually my own 
>opinion; what I was trying to show was that people on either side of 
>an issue can see (and usually do) the same thing in entirely 
>different shades.

Okay, but their point doesn't make much difference to me if it can be
disproven.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /
From: ric@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Graffiti 404-972-4999)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Anybody named BOB
Date: 17 Dec 1992 22:38:09 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu

In article <92352.002955KXS137@psuvm.psu.edu> <KXS137@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>? do U call A GaY NamEd Bob
>
> Oral Roberts

And what is Oral's nickname?


                                          Blow-job Bob.


("I don't hate televangelists, I just like making fun of them....")

-- 
 -Ric     __                       __                                 __
          \/   ric@gnu.ai.mit.edu  \/   Graffiti BBS  404 972-4999    \/
                 GEnie: GRAFFITI      PO Box 3176, Lithonia GA 30058

Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell)
Subject: Gays In The News
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 16:29:15 GMT

I't seems like many political issues concerning homosexuals have cropped
up in the news over the past several months.

It is kind of interesting.  Before, it seemed homosexuals were almost
invisible.  Now, if you are news junkie like myself, they seem to
be LITERALLY everywhere:)!

SFJR
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.politics.mideast
From: cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black)
Subject: Re: Re: Owen Layne Watson should stop flaming! Because its not nice!
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 23:55:11 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

In article <15DEC199214142736@rigel.tamu.edu> Zeke@homo.is.the.way.to.go.to.get.a.piece.of.pucker.hole.edu writes:

    [bizzare self-congratulatory stuff deleted]

>If you do see my point, then may be you have put more than two-seconds
>of reactionary thought to my post and ask your self "Hey, I see what he
>is trying to say (albeit, it is said with the most extreme of sarcasm)

    To paraphrase Mark Twain: Sarcasm is the attempt of a feeble mind to
express itself forcibly.
    If you have such deep thoughts, worthy of serious reflection, you
should state them seriously.  It doesn't take more than two-seconds (sic)
to classify your ranting and raving as typical homophobic blather.

>and maybe I should re-evaluate my situation to really make sure that I
>am comfortable with my politically correct, higher echelon of thinking,
>open-minded acceptance of some one stabbin' my anus with a reproductive
>organ.

    Accepting the existence of same-sex activity between consenting adults
and accepting it for yourself are two different things.  Insipid statements
like the above place you squarely in the "homophobic, closed-minded jerk"
category, imho.  You want adult treatment?  Act like one.

-- 
   ******************************************************************
     Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
     Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ.