HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Date: 5 Jan 93 20:45:06 GMT
Organization: University of Washington
NNTP-Posting-Host: glia.biostr.washington.edu

In <24683@galaxy.ucr.edu> starbuck@galaxy.ucr.edu (starbuck) writes:
>In article <michael.726194001@glia> michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael) writes:
>-I'm sure that most feminists are going to spend their time trying to obtain
>-the rights they deserve.  I agree that women should be included in the draft.

>And don't forget about the rights that they don't deserve and any thing they
>can take or get for free.  Michael, feminism is a politial movement and as
>such will willingly  hurt others to get their way.  Period.  That is way of 
>politics.  

I disagree.  Feminism is a movement in which women are trying to obtain
equal rights.  *Some* feminists have entered politics to pursue this goal.
I have never met a feminist who has deliberately hurt anyone (although
I imagine there are some bad feminists like there are bad people).  Of
course with any change some people get hurt, but that is the way of life.

>-But a male only draft is an unfairness directed at men.  And if you as a man
>-don't like it, get off your a** and do something about it.  Do you really
>-expect Diane Feinstein or anyone else to fight your battles for you?
>-    Michael Stanley (michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu)

>I expect that Diane Feinstein will represent the people of the state
>of California.  That is her obligation and her duty.  She was elected
>to represent the state NOT feminism.  Period.  Should she fail to
>do so she will find herself unemployed.  I believe she went for the
>short term so she can run for gov in 94.  I think she would like
>to be president someday.  As unlikely as that may be any hope
>that she may have to obtain such a position will be determined on
>how well she represents the "PEOPLE" of California.  

Was that like a political aside? :)  It certainly had nothing to do with
what I just said.  You had just said that we won't see her fighting for
an equal draft, and then I pointed out that the unequal draft is an
unfairness against men and that it is men who whould deal with it.

    Michael Stanley (michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Why I am Not An Egalitarian
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 19:13:08 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.130019.13949@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>| >>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>| >>>And your use of the word "intuition" makes me nervous. It's a female,
>| >>>non-objective thing.
>
>twain@milton.u.washington.edu (Barbara Hlavin) writes:
>| >Intuition is not "a female thing." 
>
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>| I think we have a definition problem here.
>| 
>| In general, I agree.
>| 
>| intuition n.  1) a- The faculty of knowing as if by instinct, without
>|   conscious reasoning. b- A perceprion based upon this faculty. 2)
>|   Sharp insight.
>| 
>| But then there is a thing known as `feminine intuition'. How this
>| differs from normal intuition is not clear, but the usage of the term
>| indicates that it is a faculty possessed only by women.
>| 
>| Can a women intuit without it being a result of `feminine intuition'?
>| You tell me.  ...
>
>I've seldom heard the term "feminine intuition" used by
>a woman.  Rather, it was popular when I was growing up, in
>the 1950s, because women were supposed to be incapable of
>reason, and there had to be some explanation of how they
>managed to get about in the world and do things.

Hmmm, perhaps you are right.
  
>In other words, it's part of a stereotype.  Some
>neuropsychologists have suggested that women may, in 
>general, possess better intuitive powers than men, because
>of small physiological differences, but this is also true
>of left-handed versus right-handed people and is all very
>speculative.  "Intuition" may actually represent a large
>collection of different mental processes.
>-- 
>
> )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
>( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: sam@sad.hp.com (Vicky Hansen)
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 15:05:23 GMT
Organization: HP Sonoma County (SRSD/MWTD/MID)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL7]
Followup-To: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women

Rich Payne (payner@netcom.com) wrote:
: Perhaps if women took responsibility for raising
: their children as non-violent there would be less.

I doubt if the majority of mass murderer's mothers deliberately raised their
children to be violent.  I also question the fact that fathers seem to be
out of this picture (especially since I suspect you are male).
I am not a violent person and I raised my boys in a way that I hoped would
limit any violent tendencies.  However, 
 1) My ex husband gave them laser tag sets that teach them to shoot to kill
 2) Violence is on most TV shows, including cartoons aimed a children
 3) Violence is so common at school that one of my boys stayed in the
    classroom for a few months one year rather that go to recess and get
    beat up
Mothers are indeed a part of the environment but not as much of one as we
would like to be.
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center
Date: Tuesday, 12 Jan 1993 05:53:47 EST
From: <RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: AA-related ramblings
Distribution: na
 <1993Jan9.154501.23918@panix.com> <1993Jan12.041032.7470@genie.slhs.udel.edu>

-From: nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Nancy Lebovitz)
-Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 04:10:32 GMT
-
-In article <1993Jan9.154501.23918@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
-writes:
->jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
->| ...
->| AA is at least teaching segments of the society that had otherwise
->| never experienced discrimination based on gender what it's like.
->| Sauce for the gander, as it were.
->|
->| Think maybe NOW we can all agree that it's wrong?
->
->But almost no one thinks it's right or good.  The question
->is whether it's a worse evil than the evils it is supposed
->to cure or mitigate.  The teaching aspect seems peripheral,
->by the way, since it focuses the resentment of the victim
->on the law rather than on the underlying condition which
->gave rise to the law.  For example, a white person who is
->done out of a desirable job because it had to be given to
->a black person resents black people and the affirmative
->action law, rather than the racism which was the cause of
->the law and the discrimination which was its pretext.
->
->The clever thing would be to come up a cure for the
->problems of discrimination which was neither quotizing
->affirmative action nor handwaving.
-
-I think that the general structure of the solution would be
-to find a way to teach people how to pay attention to each
-other's personal abilities, temperments and emotions, rather
-than crude and (for many purposes) arbitrary racial, ethnic,
-and gender divisions. Any ideas about what the specifics of
-such a program might be?
-
-Nancy Lebovitz
-nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu

I think this `conflict' between the individual and the general is fake.
If I know that Tolstoy and Gogol are Russian, it helps me to understand
their writing and I need not be so foolish as to think that Tolstoy is
exactly like Gogol or for that matter like Gorbachev!  Gender, nationality,
race, religion give us partial information about a person.  Sometimes that
informations is misleading, e.g. to think of Conrad as an East European
writer.  And they always need to be filled in with specific details.
But provided one is willing to use this information in a cautious and
tentative way, it may in fact be helpful.  Also, ignoring it can be
dangerous.  My own wife, when we married, thought of herself primarily
as an intellectual.  But once we had children she became obsessed with them.

Freud is wrong when he says, `anatomy is destiny'.  But he is not wholly
wrong.  He should say, more cautiously,  `biology is an important factor, and
as much for men as for women.'  If you ignore biology, you will never
understand the kids in Newark who steal cars and do extremely dangerous
tricks with them.

Rohit Parikh
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: michael@neuron6.jpl.nasa.gov (Michael Rivero)
Subject: Re: Men's Responsibilities VS. Women's
Organization: JPL Pasadena CA
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 16:47:27 GMT

In article <FD2XwB3w165w@qed.cts.com> kisses@qed.cts.com (Kisses) writes:
>
>        Some jokester by name of "Will Steeves" was silly enough to say: 
>"to take a short, one-time $300-$500 trip to a clinic to dispose of one's 
>parental responsibilities before the fact ... hardly compares to an 18-24 
>year "consequence" of $250,000 or more!"
>
>        First of all, you cannot even BEGIN to compare the emotional and 
>often physical trauma of having an abortion to being stuck with a couple 
>bills for a measly 20 years or so. 

  And you obviously do not understand what it feels like to be held
in financial servitude for the most productive years of your life.

>
>        If you play your cards right, you can get back your pocket 
>change.

  Really? How?

>
>        And if you are naive enough, "Will", to think that it is the 
>woman's responsibility to take care of the birth control, then get out 
>your checkbook!!  What's that old saying?  "A fool and his money will 
>soon be parted."


  Wait just a minute. The reason birth control became legal was to give 
women the right to control their own pregnancies. Now you are saying that 
if she chooses to be irresponsible, the man is now obligated?

  Rights to choose and responsability go hand in hand. If you want the
child, that's fine. But until the man is given a choice in the matter
it's unfair to expect him to blundly pay the price for the woman's decision.
We men were not put here on this Earth to be cash objects for women's
convenience!

>
>Kisses!!

No thanks. I only date women who have kids.


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Omigod, he's BACK!  The Animator From HECK and his unchained PIXELS!   |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|                                                                         |
|  Thanks to some very generous support by folks whose names are          |
|  omitted to protect the insoucent, I once again have net access.        |
|                                                                         |
|    My sojourn at this email address will be brief as the Animation      |
|  Attic will soon take delivery of a UNIX workstations and will then     |
|  acquire it's own net-feed.                                             |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

-- 
Michael Rivero michael%neuron6@jpl-mil.jpl.nasa.gov
From: baba@samadhi.Tymnet.COM (Duane Hentrich)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: AA-related ramblings
Date: 12 Jan 93 20:37:37 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: BT North America (Tymnet)

In article <1993Jan09.085400.29764@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>AA is at least teaching segments of the society that had otherwise
>never experienced discrimination based on gender what it's like. 
>Sauce for the gander, as it were.
>
>Think maybe NOW we can all agree that it's wrong?

Yes. Revenge is wrong. Tit for Tat. Eye for an Eye. Taking solace
in another's misfortune is wrong.

Gee, maybe we need roving rape gangs just to teach them nasty men
what it's like, huh?

Feh. Big time.

-- 
d'baba Duane M. Hentrich	baba@Tymnet.Com

We have yet to learn that the thing uttered in words is not therefore affirmed. It must affirm itself, or no forms of logic or of oath can give it evidence. 
The sentence must also contain its own apology for being spoken. - R.W.Emerson
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: jean@cs.cornell.edu (Jean M. Petrosino)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Carol Mosely Braun
Date: 8 Jan 93 19:42:20 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853

>Much of the mud that hits Matthews splatters Braun. So she has to go before
>the cameras, face a barrage of questions from reporters and try to defend
>herself and Matthews.

>I haven't seen any of the accusers sitting in front of the cameras and
>answering questions.

>Why should they answer questions? Because fairness demands it. If they are
>going to accuse a person of something that opens him to public contempt,
>they should be required to step right up there and provide specifics.

>Just tossing out the phrase "sexual harassment" shouldn't be and isn't
>enough. And the media can't hide behind the excuse that it will print the
>facts -- or some of them -- and let the public decide if these women should
>or shouldn't be believed. The public hasn't been given a chance to make up
>its mind because it hasn't heard one word directly from these women. All it
>has to go on is a reporter's sketchy version of what these nameless people
>say. That's not enough.
 
I agree with you that this story is very 'sketchy'.  I think it also needs to 
be noted that this 'sketchy' story is getting so much press - these reporters 
must be aware of how badly this story is put together.  Could it maybe have 
something to do with the fact that Carol Mosely Braun is the first Afican woman
to make it to such a public office?  Or maybe it's because she repeatedly spoke
about her anger regarding women's issues, particularly those raised by the 
Clarence Thomas hearings.  This makes it hard to believe that the supposed
liberal conspiracy happening in this country truly 'owns' the press.  Sounds 
like conservatives running the show to me.
By the way, when CMB went to get her I.D. in Washington, they gave her a 
'spouse' I.D..  At least they didn't assume she was a new cleaning lady.
  
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine)
Subject: Re: Boycotts (was Re: Why are many low-income women fat?)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 16:53:44 GMT

gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:

>In article <C0C9xx.M9y@news.cso.uiuc.edu> 
>levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
>>gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:

>#What have been the major changes in your definition of "good"?

>>Just a few examples: Ethical decisions have to be made about new
>>birth technologies, such as surrogate motherhood, and new 
>>communications technologies, such as the net. And these decisions
>>may certainly change, as the technology evolves.

>All of that is true, but what have been the major changes 
>in your definition of "good"?

It depends on how you define "good" in the first place. To the
extent you define it as a set of specific rules for conduct,
or rules for how a society should be run, then, yes, these
rules need to change as the ecology and economy changes.

If you are reluctant to give good a universal verbal definition; if you
define it in a *situational* sense, then, of course, this
situational approach will not change.  

>>However, one of the most effective, competent and ethical
>>institutions I've ever had contact with was the San Jose State University
>>Mathematics/Computer Science Department.

>>A pity that when they cut the budget in California (due in part to a little
>>hissy between those giants of competence, Pete Wilson and Willie Brown) the
>>state universities were one of the institutions most severely affected.

>What did you try to show?

Just that governmental or other nonprofit institutions *can* work.
In specific, I think many academic math departments work reasonably well.

Lenore Levine

>Hillel                                                gazit@cs.duke.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: AA-related ramblings
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 22:09:44 GMT

In <1993Jan12.041032.7470@genie.slhs.udel.edu> nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Nancy Lebovitz) writes:

>In article <1993Jan9.154501.23918@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>>jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>>| ...
>>| AA is at least teaching segments of the society that had otherwise
>>| never experienced discrimination based on gender what it's like. 
>>| Sauce for the gander, as it were.
>>| 
>>| Think maybe NOW we can all agree that it's wrong?
>>
>>But almost no one thinks it's right or good.  The question 
>>is whether it's a worse evil than the evils it is supposed 
>>to cure or mitigate.  The teaching aspect seems peripheral,
>>by the way, since it focuses the resentment of the victim
>>on the law rather than on the underlying condition which
>>gave rise to the law.  For example, a white person who is 
>>done out of a desirable job because it had to be given to 
>>a black person resents black people and the affirmative
>>action law, rather than the racism which was the cause of
>>the law and the discrimination which was its pretext.
>>
>>The clever thing would be to come up a cure for the
>>problems of discrimination which was neither quotizing
>>affirmative action nor handwaving.

>I think that the general structure of the solution would be
>to find a way to teach people how to pay attention to each
>other's personal abilities, temperments and emotions, rather
>than crude and (for many purposes) arbitrary racial, ethnic,
>and gender divisions. Any ideas about what the specifics of
>such a program might be?

Well (sorry to seem hung up on the subject) we might start by
putting the educational system back to the classical arts
model. By this I mean one in which students are taught to
think, and think for themselves.

I see constant statements here, such as "well so-and-so said
in his/her book", or "please give me a reference to some fact
or article". In matters of engineering, science, etc. I see
some value in reference material. In the job of living, I much
prefer to do my own thinking, thank you.

Just look at all the arm waving, etc in groups like alt.politics.?
Do you ever see much original thought? Dammit people, you were
given brains, use them or lose them. Seriously think and try to
prove any logical basis for racism, sexism, and most other isms.
If you can actually come up with something that logically convinces
you that there is indeed some value in or need for such stupidity,
then go for it - it will at least have been your own idea. And good
luck BTW, cause they tell me I'm in the 99.5 percentile and in 62
years on this earth, I have not been able to find any reason for
racism or sexism that could stand the light of day.

The Old Grouch.


>Nancy Lebovitz
>nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil)
Subject: Re: Women DOCTORS
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 04:52:36 GMT

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

>In article <1993Jan11.001335.15622@news.unomaha.edu> webber@cwis.unomaha.edu (Joan Livingston-Webber) writes:
>>Have also had many of both.  had a nasty pelvic by a female dr. (1967) and
>>a male dr who didn't use stirrups at all (1992).  Still, looking for a new
>>dr. , I want a female.  It has to do with being tired of male physician
>>arrogance.


>	"Male physician arrogance"? 

Yes.  Male physician arrogance.  I still remember having a very painful
gynecological exam.  It HURT.  And he insisted that it didn't.  Believe me,
I know when it hurts.  I was a virgin and nervous and him yelling at me
didn't make it any easier.

I only have my pelvics done at a local women's clinic now.  They only
hire women to do the exams and the women who work there are extremely
supportive.  The last time I had an exam, I was very nervous and the 
woman who was giving me the exam did a great job in helping me feel less
nervous.

>>  I hope women retain through med school some tendancy to
>>see other women as equipped with some intelligence about their bodies.

>	Most doctors have learned that 99.9999% of their patients are
>	completely ignorant of how the human body functions.  I've never
>	noticed a difference between women or men in this aspect.

Actually, I've found that I have had better treatment from female physician's
assistants.  PA's for some reason seem to have better bedside manner than 
doctors.

Sharon
oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: Re: Reading Suggestion
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 04:33:42 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov (Michael W. Rowland) recommends:
| 1)  "The Way Things Ought to Be"  Rush Limbaugh (of course!)
| 
| 2)  "Illiberal Education"  Dinesh D'Souza
|      (The politics of race and sex on campus)
| 
| 3)  "Why Johnny Can't Tell Right from Wrong"  William
|                                               Kilpatrick
|      (Moral illiteracy and the case for character education)
| 
| Any of you that are active in the arguments currently 
| threading through this newsgroup would be WELL ADVISED to 
| find, buy, and study these books.  Especially the ones by 
| D'Souza and Kilpatrick.  As it turns out, Limbaugh's book 
| seems to reflect much of what these two authors espouse.  
| ...

You've recommended three right-wing books by three
famous right-wingers.  While they may shed light on,
or expand, the right-wing point of view for you, they
are unlikely to give a full or even a fair view of
(for instance) feminism, or anything else that right-
wingers disagree with.  I recommend somewhat more
diverse reading, unless all you want is confirmation
of your prejudices.
-- 

 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine)
Subject: Re: Boycotts (was Re: Why are many low-income women fat?)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:01:07 GMT

gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:

>In article <C08nKs.IK3@news.cso.uiuc.edu> 
>levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:

>>>>A clear definition works very well in more stable societies,
>>>>but doesn't seem to work as well in more quickly changing
>>>>societies. 

>>Hell, yes!!! (Of course, remember I'm 43 years old.) I don't think

>What have been the major changes in your definition of "good"?

Just a few examples: Ethical decisions have to be made about new
birth technologies, such as surrogate motherhood, and new 
communications technologies, such as the net. And these decisions
may certainly change, as the technology evolves.

>If you want to get the job done then better find a small start-up
>with a couple of people who understand the subject.  They would
>be able to solve the problem much faster.

Granted. 

>>And, of the institutions I've had direct
>>experience with, both the most successful and the least were nonprofit
>>in their essential purpose; the profit-making organizations tend to fall
>>in the middle.

>My impression is that the young companies are where the job is really done.
>The old companies have too many "yes-men" that can't understand a
>changing world.  The government is of course one of the oldest
>companies around...

Quite reasonable. However, one of the most effective, competent and ethical
institutions I've ever had contact with was the San Jose State University
Mathematics/Computer Science Department.

A pity that when they cut the budget in California (due in part to a little
hissy between those giants of competence, Pete Wilson and Willie Brown) the
state universities were one of the institutions most severely affected.

Lenore Levine

>>Lenore Levine

>Hillel                                                gazit@cs.duke.edu

>"I don't need the Canadian government's approval, any more than I
>need an NEA grant to fund my posting."  --  STella@xanadu.com	
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women