HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: Fifty-nine cents and what to do about it
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 12:54:18 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

julie@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu (Julie Wright) writes:
| >     ...  The argument I've seen is that women are often directed (by direct
| >discrimination, by discrimination in early training (e.g. being shunted
| >into secretarial courses in school or discouraged from taking math), or
| >by societal expectations) into "pink collar" jobs -- jobs traditionally
| >held by women -- which are low-paying.

pepke@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke) writes:
| ...
| So why is it that about 99.44% of the time the proposed solution is to
| force employers to make all the numbers come out even?  I know of at least
| two reasons.
| 
| 1) In order to challenge pre-university shooling, where a lot of basic 
|    attitudes, talents, and proclivities are formed, it is necessary to 
|    go head-to-head with a profession that is almost entirely dominated
|    by women.
| 
| 2) In order to challenge attitudes taught informally, it is necessary 
|    to go head-to-head with primary care givers, most of whom are women.
| 
| Both of these are political hot potatoes and pose potential ideological
| problems for feminists that are difficult to face.  The result is that,
| quite a lot of the time, the matter is NOT faced and all of the problem
| is presumed to lie with employers. ...

Well, _we_ can face these problems -- bravely and cleverly,
because we're just a couple of newsgroups and have nothing
political to lose.  What advice would we give these teachers
and primary-care-givers, mostly also known as mommies?  Do
we know what the problem is?  Do we have the answers?  If
these teachers and PCG's start to implement our suggestions,
will they get in trouble or get support, and from whom?
These are not rhetorical questions.
-- 

 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
From: vaccaro@novavax.UUCP (N. Trafford Vaccaro)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Women in Combat
Summary: My little opinion
Date: 10 Nov 92 08:47:57 GMT
Organization: Nova University, Fort Lauderdale, FL

In article <3691@creatures.cs.vt.edu>, debra@creatures.cs.vt.edu (Debra Potts) writes:
> >If we don't let women into combat because, as a group, they are weaker 
> >than men, then the consistent thing to do would be to bar asians
> >(who are, I think, on average weaker than whites), and maybe even bar
> >whites (who are, perhaps, on average weaker than blacks -- we need to
> >collect some data on this one). Is this the way you think?  
> 
As long as you can carry my wounded butt out of the line of fire, I 
don't care who you are or what gender. That is why they have 
minimum criteria for fitness, like carrying one's own weight (pull ups,
etc).

One thing that no one ever seems to mention, though. When a fire team
or rifle squad is out in the field, teamwork is essential. It's hard
enough having teamwork with all the the other petty fights and
arguments and feuds, and peoples' lives are at stake, during
peacetime too, when you're working with heavy or dangerous equipment.
You want people to keep their minds on their job. Now what do
you suppose is on a lot of 18 year old men's minds when they
are sitting out in the field, bored, and haven't seen a female
in weeks? I've seen what happens when several young men are
trying to "date" the one woman that shows up at the enlisted club.
They're at each other's throats. 

Now you can yell at me.


Nick
Xref: sparky soc.women:19339 alt.feminism:4190 soc.men:19088
From: teri@sdd.hp.com (Teri Tracey)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Date: 11 Nov 1992 11:24:41 -0800
Organization: Hell's Little Breakfast Nook
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: hp-sdd.sdd.hp.com

nissim@mary.fordham.edu (Leonard J. Nissim) writes:
> I don't find such ads offensive, just boring.   

Look, a man who isn't offended by ads that oppress women!  Well, what
a nice surprise.  

Teri
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: cfaks@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Alice Sanders)
Subject: Re: getting fired after making sexual harrassment complaint - illegal?
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 00:16:24 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

In article <1992Nov10.184911.13663@smds.com> rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes:
>
>-------
>
>Yes, she has to make the case for harassment.  What she should have done
>[ain't hindsight advice wonderful] is to keep a diary of events,
>documenting times, places, and events.  This is standard practice on
>both sides of the fence -- if you are going to fire somone you need
>to establish a record of having warned the person, etc.  If she can
>reconstruct a record and if they have not covered their tracks she has
>a good case.

Do you mean she has to make the case for sexual harrassment or for the
harrassment she received for making the sexual harrassment complaint?  The
latter is really the problem now.

>
>Despite the flap, it is not simple to make discrimination and harassment
>charges stick.  The catches are (a) the sundry agencies are drowned in
>paperwork and tend to treat stuff pro forma unless you've made a strong
>documented case, and (b) many lawyers "specializing" in this area are
>sleazeballs.
>

She was discriminated against for complaining about another kind of
discrimination.  I'm not sure I followed your answer here.

She did keep a journal of everything that happened from the day after she
made her complaint.  They basically tried to make her quit, but even
though she ended up with a bloody nose from pure tension, she did not
quit, they fired her.  She has documented this, too, because it is clear
they had no real reason for firing her; that's why they had to try to bug
her enough to make her quit.  When she finally got upset enough to have to
miss work, they then fired her for missing work.  But she had sick leave
coming, so that is not legitimate, either.  

Thanks for your response.

Alice

Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: More on Women in MalePreserves
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 00:21:31 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.202926.27454@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:

)Now for a Small Technical Question:
)
)	If a Unit, that contains NonMale, NonExempt Catagory,
)	military personnel, finds itself in 'armed conflict'
)	due to fluctuations in the FEBA
)
)	then:
)		2.1: Said NonMale Persons will be Evacuated?
)
)		2.2: Said NonMale Persons will not be in trouble?
)
)		2.3: Said NonMale Persons will be obliged to defend
)			the perimeter like everyone else....
)
)		2.4: The Powers that Be Will wave their Majik Wand
)			And the FEBA will be redefined as a NonCombatArea
)			So that NonMalePersons will not be in a Combat Area.

(note - I've added soc.men and deleted alt.sex) from what came up when I
did 'followups')

2.5:  The 'powers that be' will wring their hands over the tragic deaths
of the NonMalePersons, and claim that this proves how InHumanelyBrutal
the EnemyPersons are and WhyTheyShouldAllBeShot.

Note that deaths of MalePersons will not produce this response.

(I don't have to like or approve of it, but I think that's what 
ThePowersThatBe would actually do.  More or less, anyway.)

Xref: sparky soc.women:18813 alt.abortion.inequity:4831 talk.abortion:46591 alt.feminism:3685 soc.men:18643
From: auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Date: 5 Nov 92 08:58:28 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Swarthmore College, PA

In article <forb0004.38.720666539@student.tc.umn.edu> forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu (Eric Forbis) writes:
>In article <3RLSB4B2@cc.swarthmore.edu> auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer) writes:
>>From: auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer)
>>Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
>>Date: 1 Nov 92 23:17:18 GMT
>>In article <1992Oct29.150706.26091@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>>>In article <1ckmjdINN5cp@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
MLP>A question for those support mandated husband notification:

MLP>[material deleted]

DSA>One must look at instances leaning more towards the first several cases I
DSA>mentioned and at those more similar to the last example and way them in terms
DSA>of estimated frequency of the former versus the latter.  Bearing this in mind
DSA>one must than guess the relative consequences under father's notification and
DSA>lack of father's notification and then decide based upon a merger of these two
DSA>data which legal set-up is best.  My suspicion is that upon sufficient soul-
DSA>searching you will come to agree with me _against_ father's notification.

EF>We must judge father's rights under the supposition that they are rapists, 
EF>etc.?

Laws exist for when reason fails.  The case of the abusive or rapist father is
the most critical in that it is the case wherein the most damage can be done.

DSA>Does this mean that if I negate your assumption-assume that the class of 
DSA>men isn't criminal, in other words- that you'd agree that there were no 
DSA>valid reasons for not recognizing fathers?

No.  There are other cases as well.  For instance, if the father is not the
mother's husband, or if the father is incapable of raising the child (a tough
call to make, but perhaps plausible in imaginable cases (drug-addiction,
extreme youth,...)  If the father has abused the mother.

-dave
From: Dan.Wilson@f29.n130.z1.fidonet.org (Dan Wilson)
Sender: FredGate@ocitor.fidonet
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Contraceptive sponge
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1992 22:56:20

I am a 45 year old male with a 36 year old wife, and we have a 2 year old "contraceptive sponge" daughter. I would venture to say that, in my opinion, the sponge is rather ineffective. Of course as a sidebar to that thought, I do not regret my daughter to any degree. She is the light of my life. But do not depend on dear old sponge to prevent pregnancy. :)

 * Origin: Mail Drop (1:130/29)
Newsgroups: soc.women,talk.politics.theory,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.classics
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Was Clinton's victory America's message to the Anti-Choice?
Summary: It's a good start, anyway.
Date: 6 Nov 92 19:13:52 GMT
Article-I.D.: rice.BxB6r5.LCJ
Distribution: na
Organization: Rice University

In article <1992Nov6.183726.12720@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>
>>>I'm curious to hear what you all think about the issue of abortion and its
>>>effects on the presidency and other implications such as the dangling
>>>supreme court.
>>
>>Clinton will sign the Freedom of Choice Act (at least, he said he would),
>>and will use R v. W  as a litmus for Supreme Court candidates (at least,
>>he said he would).
>>
>>Don't know how many justices he'll get to appoint in his 4 years, though...
>
>
>Not a flame, just my $.02, the justices already on the court were appointed
>for a lifetime term, so Clinton can't appoint any new people until one of
>them retires.

Which is, in a nutshell, what Kurt was saying up there.  

--PLH (you gotta start *somewhere*.)


--
From: mikep@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Mike Powell)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Re: Men farting (women too!)
Date: 5 Nov 92 04:26:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: hpmwmat.32620092
Organization: HP Santa Rosa Site (SRSD MWTD)


	
	Actually.... it is a 'man-thing'.  Eddie Murphy covered it
	pretty well....

	Fathers teach it to their sons....  There are many ways to
	do this...  Early exposure to it comes in the form of farting
	in front of the whole family, with a fart of the silent variety.
	This helps to hide the original owner of the fart.

	Dad then openly blames Mom for the fart, and requests a divorce.

	The male children soon pick up on things, and begin to naturally
	experiment with "The Fart Game" and become quite good at it
	by the time they graduate from high school.

	Farting in front of friends becomes a form of male bonding. 
	Sometimes bonding occurs between one's underware and one's jeans.
	(A 2 hr soak in hot soapy water will release them.)

	It gets worse from here, so I think I'll just  pass  on telling
	the rest of it, before the readership starts  fuming .

	-Mike-


	:-)  <--- for the humor impaired...
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: mkagalen@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (michael kagalenko)
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Organization: Northeastern University, Boston, MA. 02115, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 23:37:16 GMT

In article <MUFFY.92Nov11091838@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <1992Nov11.162826.14780@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> krw@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (keith.r.smith) writes:
>>In article <MUFFY.92Nov11075211@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>>In article <11NOV199210045505@mary.fordham.edu> nissim@mary.fordham.edu (Leonard J. Nissim) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Nov11.070434.14395@dragon.acadiau.ca>, 
>>>>Nobody ever put a gun to my head and said "Watch this or else!"  
>>>>Every television set I've ever seen has an "off" switch.
>[my discussion of the myriad other places that ads are placed in our
>everyday lives]
>>I guess that rules out the beach, the public swimming pool, the health club,
>>the nite club, the beauty parlor, the mall, any women's sporting event, the
>>ballet, or any other type of dance performance that might involve women, or
>>any other place or event where you might perchance see living, breathing human
>>beings that just happen to approximate the look of the women in the ads, and
>>therefore make you feel uncomfortable.
>
>*LAUGH*...oh, my.  Well, actually, I can't look in the mirror, then,
>either, because *I* happen to approximate the look of the women in the
>ads (I'm tall, thin, reasonably attractive, etc.)  In fact, my SO was
>just saying the other day that he was looking at Playboy and wondering
>why the women in there didn't look as good as me...*grin*.

I guess only person ready to provide a lot of flattery could become 
your SO 

>
>Anyway, dear, you miss the point.  The point is not that I object to the
>look of the women in the ads, the point is that it is ridiculous to
>claim that anyone can avoid all ads, especially simply by turning off
>the television.
>
>>Get a life... Please!
>
>*grin*...what an amazing argument.  Did you have to think very hard to
>come up with that?
>
>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
From: mkagalen@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (michael kagalenko)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: what is sexist? (was Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Date: 13 Nov 92 03:21:43 GMT
Organization: Northeastern University, Boston, MA. 02115, USA

In article <MUFFY.92Nov12152904@remarque.berkeley.edu> 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".
>
>Well, that's very interesting.  If we accept your dictionary's
>definition of sexism, it would follow that a woman who discriminated
>against men, but did not assume that women were superior to men, would
>not be sexist, since the discrimination has to be based on the
>assumption that one sex is superior.  In that case, something like
>affirmative action would not be sexist, since it is based on the
>assumption that neither sex is superior.

Exactly the opposite. If neither sex is superior/inferior, affirmative 
actions simply aren't needed. I've noticed several times, that author 
of this posting really has troubles with logical reasoning.
From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: getting fired after making sexual harrassment complaint - illegal?
Date: 10 Nov 92 18:49:11 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Distribution: na
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Nov10.021933.14811@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> cfaks@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Alice Sanders) writes:

>Alice Sanders answers:

>So are you saying that as long as the company does not state that they are
>firing her for making the complaint, that that means they fired her for
>something else, and she has no recourse legally?  Do you have to 'prove'
>being fired for the complaint, or can't you just show that it is 'likely'
>that you were fired for the complaitn?  I understood that you don't have
>to prove the same way in a case like this that you do in a criminal case.
>I understood that you can use 'preponderance of the evidence'.

>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.

-------

Yes, she has to make the case for harassment.  What she should have done
[ain't hindsight advice wonderful] is to keep a diary of events,
documenting times, places, and events.  This is standard practice on
both sides of the fence -- if you are going to fire somone you need
to establish a record of having warned the person, etc.  If she can
reconstruct a record and if they have not covered their tracks she has
a good case.

Despite the flap, it is not simple to make discrimination and harassment
charges stick.  The catches are (a) the sundry agencies are drowned in
paperwork and tend to treat stuff pro forma unless you've made a strong
documented case, and (b) many lawyers "specializing" in this area are
sleazeballs.
-- 
Richard Harter: SMDS Inc.  Net address: rh@smds.com Phone: 508-369-7398 
US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742.    Fax: 508-369-8272
In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Date: 06 Nov 92 04:05:13 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: na

In article <1992Nov4.125642.25624@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> rlt@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (r l taylor) writes:
>In article <1d80jsINN746@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>rlt@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (r l taylor) writes:
>
>>>>In article <1992Nov2.212103.12012@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>
>>>>>The legislation was for -spousal- notification. And if my wife was pregnant,
>
>[deleted for brevity]
>
>Yep, you're right, I bow to your superior logic. :-)  He doesn't have a
>*right* to know anything.  I guess she doesn't have a right to know if
>he's sleeping around, either?  Regardless of possible children, AIDS,
>any other consequences...Tell 
>this point in time?)  Do we have the right to know if someone is breaking
>the terms of a contract we've both voluntarily agreed to?  Does a person
>have the *right* to file for divorce if the other partner is unfaithful,
>abusive, etc, or is that just something they'd "like"?  

So, write your congressional representives pushing for a law
which requires all people who are in a marriage contract to
notify their spouses if they have sex with someone outside
the marriage contract.

I have no problem with that.

But "she must notify her spouse that she's pregnant and going to
have an abortion if the pregnancy is the result of sex outside
the marriage partnership" smacks me the same way that the 'pregnancy
rule' at a neighborhood Christian school did. The pregnancy rule was that
'any student who is pregnant has sinned against God and as part
of Christian morality pregnant students are expelled".  TWO students 
were involved in making the pregnancy --- ONE was expelled. (Unless,
of course, she had an abortion before anyone found out.  Strange
how the number of babies born went down and the [grapevine/circle
of friends] number of abortions when up after this rule was put
into place.)

-jen
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: Men farting
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 22:33:15 GMT

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

There was an episode of Dinosaurs (ABC Friday nights) where the daughter asked
that sort of question to her mother.  (it was refering to crudeness in general,
triggered by a burping contest the males were having)  The mother answered it
like:
	Well, I think males are born with a certain amount of crudeness,
	but it takes years of interacting with other males before they
	achieve *total* crudeness.
8-)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: charleen@ADS.COM (Charleen Bunjiovianna)
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Organization: The Original Estrogen-Crazed Lust Bunnies
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 19:38:25 GMT

In article <1drmlpINN1og@hp-sdd.sdd.hp.com> teri@sdd.hp.com (Teri Tracey) writes:
>nissim@mary.fordham.edu (Leonard J. Nissim) writes:
>> I don't find such ads offensive, just boring.   
>
>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?

Charleen

DEFINE oppress
DEFINITION 2
1 depress
2 wrong
op.press \*-'pres\ \-'pres-*r\ vt [ME oppressen, fr. MF oppresser, fr. L 
   oppressus, pp. of o]pprimere, fr. ob- against + premere to press - more at 
   OB-, PRESS archaic  1a: SUPPRESS  1b: to crush or burden by abuse of power 
   or authority  2: to burden spiritually or mentally as if by pressure : 
   weigh down  - op.pres.sor n

--
It is sad to see a family be torn apart, especially by something so simple
like wild dogs.
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion