HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mch@doc.ic.ac.uk (Mike C Holderness)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: Critique of Gimbutas' "Idyllic Goddess" Claims
Date: 3 Jan 1993 17:53:56 -0000
Organization: c/o Dept Computing, Imperial College, University of London, UK.
NNTP-Posting-Host: swan.doc.ic.ac.uk
Keywords: love peace justice loss-of-power

In {something or other noted above} Rohit Parikh wrote:

> The crucial thing to me is to ask, how can we work out a world order in
> which men and women can live together in love and friendship, in which
> biological differences are respected, but not made into a prison  for
> anyone?  These are all possible goals and why not we, men AND women,
> work towards them instead of quarreling?
> 

Well, we have to try. But there are bound to be quarrels: there will be men
who feel they're losing somthing. Many different things: for your average
Joe in the bar, perhaps the "right" to view everything female as sexual prey.
(Why do such men beat up on pretty boys with long hair, a risk becoming
more relevant to young men in London these days? "Cor, I don't half fancy
that... OH SHIT! GRRRRR!" [Me? No, I never look at people in bars, this
is based on reported experiences only, honest....])

For your average Joe in the abstract space of the Internet, it might be more
appropriate to think about giving up the "right" to be considered the
species prototype (with woman as exception -- go read anatomy, psychology,
soc.feminism...). Lots more follows from that... doesn't it, boys?

Dons flame suit and ducks... 
Mike Holderness = mch@doc.ic.ac.uk
If you want me to have an opinion on your behalf, you'll have to pay. This, free

Newsgroups: alt.feminism,sci.skeptic,soc.women,soc.men
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Subject: Re: Dr. Goldberg Replies to "Patriarchy" Debate
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 01:00:03 GMT
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences

In <1992Dec22.191603.5991@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

>[Brian Siano's research: matters are a lot more complicated than one
>sex ruling the other . . . 

Does this observation apply to feminist claims as well as to
criticisms of feminism?
-- 
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
"Rem tene; verba sequentur."  (Cato)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,misc.legal
From: wcs@anchor.ho.att.com (Bill Stewart +1-908-949-0705)
Subject: Re: Retardation and Rape (was: Re: Mysogynist Bullshit)
Organization: Mary Ellen Carter Salvage Crew
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 00:40:41 GMT
	<1992Dec27.235337.25000@panix.com> <Bzy3Gv.7vH@world.std.com>
	<1992Dec29.021854.28426@panix.com> <C02ssH.C6A@world.std.com>

In article <C02ssH.C6A@world.std.com> srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller) writes:
   >>Similarly, a person who is mentally defective
   >>(defined: "...suffers from a mental disease or defect which renders
   >>him incapable of appraising the nature of his conduct" PL 130) also
   >>cannot legally give consent.  
   >But if the Glen Ridge defendants were convicted SOLELY on the basis
   >that the victim was retarded, they would only be guilty of statutory
   >rape, and would (I suspect) face a significantly lighter sentence.
   >You'd have to show actual lack of consent for a regular rape charge to
   >stick.
   Incorrect.  PL 130.05(3)(b) makes mental incapacity the legal
   equivalent of actual lack of consent.  From that point on, the
   charge of rape is treated identically with any other.  (As it should

However, Glen Ridge is here in New Jersey, not New York.
The age of consent is lower here, though I'm not sure if the victim
was above or below that age, and the law takes into account the age of
the sexual partner in age-of-consent issues as well.
Don't know what it says about mental incapacity, but that's obviously been a
major part of the testimony that's been in the papers.
--
#				Pray for peace;      Bill
# Bill Stewart 1-908-949-0705 wcs@anchor.att.com AT&T Bell Labs 4M312 Holmdel NJ
# !egassem terces eht dnuof ev'uoY  !snoitalutargnoC 
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:6642 talk.abortion:53595
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Parallel situations
Date: 30 Dec 92 14:48:23
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1992Dec30.050758.1772@watson.ibm.com>
	<jay.31.725734979@UUSERV.CC.UTAH.EDU>
	<1992Dec30.190954.17494@ncar.ucar.edu>
	<1992Dec30.160012.1@d0gslb.fnal.gov>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: holzman@d0gslb.fnal.gov's message of 30 Dec 92 22:00:12 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.160012.1@d0gslb.fnal.gov> holzman@d0gslb.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.190954.17494@ncar.ucar.edu>, marcia@rap.ucar.edu (Marcia 
>Politovich) writes:
>>>P.S. How about the Chicago couple that left their kids "home alone"?
>> 
>> Personally I think they ought to be horsewhipped (I'm serious, too).
>> Apparantly a lot of people do this and it's a sad comment on our times.

>At present, they are trying to raise $50,000 in bail to avoid a second night in
>jail, where they are presently being held pending felony charges of child
>abandonment.

Sounds pretty counter-productive; they can hardly "mend their ways" and
look after their children if they're locked up, eh?  Unless, of course,
they've already been "convicted"...looks like they have, in the minds of
the public.  What a country...news driven.

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                      | ~Can you tell me how much bleeding/it
muffy@mica.berkeley.edu            |  takes to fill a word with meaning and/
"amorous inclinations"? Aha! I'm   |  how much how much death it takes/to give
not "not straight," I'm *inclined*.|  a slogan breath?~ - Bruce Cockburn
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine)
Subject: Re: Damned Souls (was Re: Version Five)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 21:46:46 GMT

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

>>>It certainly happens, and the Old Boys can get away with that, because
>>>the deal you (liberals and feminists) offered to them.  Affirmative 
>>>action is a deal that tells them "hire enough women and minorities
>>>and then nobody will be able to sue you about discrimination."

>>>They took the deal, and that was dirty act on their part.

>>>You offered the deal, and defended it for 20 years as "equality,"
>>>and this is even a dirtier act your part.

>>You are talking about the actions and positions of other people.
>>I can't necessarily defend them; 

>But that's what you do - you are the one who defends 
>affirmative action all over the net.  

I am only defending the idea that affirmative action is *sometimes*
reasonable. I would by no means defend all current uses of affirmative
action.

>>>>Let me add -- that as a middle-aged curmudgeon, I think my chances of 
>>>>being hired as anyone's token are slimmer than a snowball's in hell.
>>>>(Not to worry though; I suspect I'll do just fine on my own merits.)

>>>Don't be so sure on both counts.

>>Of what? That my merits will be paid attention to, or that I have
>>merit?

>If you can be classified as "disabled" then it will be worth to hire
>you even if you have no merit - you'll close two affirmative action
>slots, and so they will be to hire other people that they really want.

>Anyway, if you want to check how will you do on your own merit (fat
>chance...) then you can refuse to fill up the affirmative action forms.
>This way it will be worth to hire you only if the employer
>really needs you.

What affirmative action forms are you assuming I fill out? Be specific.

Lenore Levine
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Boycotts (was Re: Why are many low-income women fat?)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 00:14:54 GMT

In article <BzvzoM.Fn3@news.cso.uiuc.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>
>>>>In many cases, these policies are a matter of public record. For
>>>>example, in the case of the systems analyst, she was explicitly
>>>>told by her contact at the employment agency that Sun would not
>>>>hire her.
>
>>Just for the record, it is my understanding that Sun is not hiring
>>-any- temporaries, at all, and this has been the policy for the last
>>several years. This is unqualified, regardless of sex, height, or
>>planet of origin, they will not hire any temps as permanant.
>
>>Even reading your text, I cannot see any implication of discrimination.
>
>The woman was considered for a permanent position at Sun; and she was
>explicitly told, that people of a nonstandard weight would not be
>considered for such positions.
>
>Yes, I think that's discrimination...
>

She was told this by the agency, not by Sun. And if it was within the
last several years, Sun has not been hiring temps. And just for the
record, I know an engineer at Sun who would probably not fit in the
passenger seat of my Honda Civic. If this were company policy, he
could not be working there.


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil)
Subject: Re: Women DOCTORS
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 16:23:55 GMT

<MIWHC@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:

>     I am looking for any sort of data/statistics on how patients feel about
>women doctors. As yet, I have found nothing. I get the impression that both
>older men and women prefer men doctors, middle-aged men prefer men doctors,
>middle-aged women prefer women doctors and both younger men and younger
>women prefer women doctors.

I have no data or statistics for you.  Just my own impressions.

Usually, I don't care what gender my doctor is, as long as he or she is 
competent and provides quality care.  But I have found, for certain exams,
you know, the dreaded "pelvic" examination, I'd prefer to see a female 
physicians' assistant.  The only decent and gentle examination I have ever
gotten has been from a female P.A.  For some reason, male gynecologists
are not gentle and don't think that they have to be.

>     These are only impressions I have received from speaking with various
>women doctors about their patients. Obviously, the fact that women are finally
>becoming doctors in much greater numbers must have something to do with this,
>but I am more interested with the QUALITY of the medical care.
>     It seems that the rate of malpractice suits are lower for women, but
>again, I need data. I also get the impression from speaking with various
>women dentists, physicians, optometrists and surgeons that women seem to be
>much more concerned with the patient's fear, comfort, and general well-being,
>while the male doctors I've spoken with seem to talk more about their
>technique and various difficult cases. Again, no data.

I would contend that those who are not, per se, doctors, but P.A.'s and
nurse practitioners (specialized nurses) have the best "bed side manner" and
tend to be more concerned with fear, comfort, and well-being.  Oh yeah, there
was an article in this month's Utne Reader which talks about health care in
the US and talks a lot about P.A.'s and nurse practioners.  You might be
interested in reading that.

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine)
Subject: Re: Feminism's Lesbian Leaders (was: Why are there only men on)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 23:55:56 GMT

sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:

>In article <1992Dec19.173705.12384@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>>
>>>Then there's Catharine MacKinnon, who we Americans foolishly
>>>allowed to shove her version of "sexual harassment" regulations down
>>>our throat. I'm not privy to the details of MacKinnon's private life,
>>
>>I'm pretty sure she's het.

>This is the woman who (in her "Toward a Feminist Theory of the State")
>calls heterosexuality "male supremacy's paradigm of sex" (p. 172). 
>Also (p. 178-9):

>  What is heterosexuality? If it is the erotization of dominance and
>  submission, altering the participants' gender does not eliminate
>  the sexual, or even gendered, content of aggression. If heterosexuality
>  is males over females, gender matters independently. Arguably,
>  heterosexuality is a fusion of the two, with gender a social outcome,
>  such that the acted upon is feminized, is the "girl" regardless of
>  sex, the actor correspondingly masculinized.

>Obviously, "heterosexuality" to Ms. MacKinnon is *not* a Good Thing.
>But Rini is pretty sure she's het.
>  
>>
>>>Morgan, the editor of "Ms.", the largest-circulation feminist
>>>magazine. Again, I am not privy to the details of her sexual
>>>life. However, she calls "the family" a "disease" ("Demon Lover",
>>>p. 316), says the most horrendous things about men - they all
>>>love death, etc. - and repeatedly praises lesbianism. So one
>>>must infer from her own statements that she's a lesbian, as well.
>>
>>No, she's married to a guy.

I am not particularly interested in praising these people.

Let me just point out, for the sake of fairness, that people may have
personal lives considerably at odds with their public political
positions. 

Like Jimmy Swaggart, remember?
From: Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Politically Incorrect parallel situations
Date: 27 Dec 92 20:22:46 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU


        [soc.men deleted from Newsgroups, alt.feminism added back in]

gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:
>In article <1hb1i8INNf40@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com
>(Adrienne Regard) writes:

>>You don't get it, Daniel.  What you posted is not a parallel.

>As Adrienne knows very well, it is not a big deal to make the
>suggestion of "choice for men" as a parallel one.

>E.g. in a case of pregnancy, every one of the future parents will
>have the right to sign away his/her rights and responsibilities
>toward the future child.

I really don't think this is parallel, and don't like it.
How about the following parallels:

---

1. Child-raising responsibilities.  Both parents are responsible
for helping to raise their child, or to make financial provision
for such raising, so long as the mental health of the child is
not at risk.  [If the participation of a parent increases such
a risk, that parent may be barred from further contact.]

2. Financial responsibilities.  Both parents are responsible for
the material provision for their child.  The level of such
provision clearly depends on the circumstances of the parents,
but shall not fall below some minimal standard of living (in
such a case external support shall be offered).

3. Child-bearing responsibilities.  Whichever parent is pregnant
with the child shall have the duty to determine whether to carry
it to full term.

---

In other words, if it happens you can't get out of it; but if
you can't manage, you get enough help to cope.  Are there any
civilized alternatives?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk      Computing Lab, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Some ideas are frost giants: pouring cold water on them helps them to grow.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Rini's private war was(Re: Why are many low-income women fat? )
Followup-To: alt.flame
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 20:50:12 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.173231.8126@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>>>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>
>>>>I did not state that "fat people cannot be physically fit" (another
>>>>misrepresentation rini), but that they are -not- fit. If the distinction
>>>>is to subtle, then this thread should die.
>
>>>You state that people can be fit or fat. Exclusive or.
>
>
>>Not exactly, few choose to get fat, I suspect that this is usually a matter
>>of training and circumstance. However, noone will go from fat to fit 
>                                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>without a consious decision to do so, and a commitment to that goal.
>
>Again, the implication that fat and fit are exclusive.  

You got it.
 
>One tip:  the opposite of "fat" is "thin".  The opposite of "fit" is
>"out of shape".  Fat != unfit and thin != fit... okay?

Sorry, not OK. If you do not care to follow the thread, that's fine.
But under those circumstances it is not wise to post.

Lets try this progression ---

Given lack of exercise and high fat, low nutrition diet.

Fit ---> out of shape --> fat --> obese.

Getting fat the result of lack of fitness. 

Followups rederected to alt.flame, where they flames belong.
 
>rini


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: Diane
Subject: Re: Feminism's Lesbian Leaders (was: Why are there only men on)
Organization: University of Missouri
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 16:51:02 CST

In article <1992Dec28.190731.12467@netcom.com>
sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
     (re: Morgan, Ireland et al)
 
>And this gaggle of lesbians is presuming to instruct heterosexual,
>family-oriented women on how to deal with men!
 
*That's* what they're trying to do!? Ohmigod! Thank heavens that there are
still big strong manly men like you to save our precious childbearers
from the lesbian scourge! What would we little dust-fer-brains *ever* do
without you? (hint: I don't know, but I'd be willing to find out...)
 
Diane
 
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: news@mont.cs.missouri.edu
Subject: Re: Back Again To (Un)Father - NOT!
Organization: University of Missouri
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 12:52:27 CST

In article <1992Dec31.142336.486@ll.mit.edu>
x73rl@ll.mit.edu ( Rick LaFave) writes:
 
>  Suppose both man and women have engineering degrees (lets say 2 BSs).
>The happy couple decides that she will stay home raising kids, and he'll
>go merrily to his place of employment every day.  Things turn sour - they
>divorce.  Do you think he should be obliged to pay 100% as she was not
>gainfully employed at the time of divorce, or do you believe she should be
>held 'available for work' because of her degree, and have imputed income?
 
Since they *both* agreed that she should stay home with the kiddies, and
since, if she is not working she doesn't have any income, I think that
the subject of her share of the support is moot until she has a job- and
yes, if it were up to me, she should find a job.
 
>  Just a note on the way the system works here.  The more 'successful'
>he is at his job (reflectd in higher pay) the more he is penalized at
>divorce time through support.
 
Just another note... The more 'successful' the custodial parent is at
his/her job (reflected in being awarded custody) the more he/she is
penalized at divorce time (raising a child alone).
 
You know, I'm a custodial parent. I'm getting the uncomfortable feeling
that a lot of people think that raising a child (or two) alone is a piece
of cake compared to writing out a support check once a month. It's not.
I know just as many people who opted to be the non-custodial parent as the
custodial one. Not everybody *wants* to raise children alone. So please, let's
stop this subtle insinuation that all custodial parents sit in front of the
TV eating BonBons all day while the ex-spouse slaves away to make support
payments. Support is based on *ability* to pay. It would be pretty ridiculous
to have the parent who makes the least money (and often spends the most time
with the child) pay a higher % of his/her income than the wealthier parent.
 
Diane
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine)
Subject: Re: Mysogynist Bullshit
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 20:18:02 GMT

Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:

>levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes...
>>sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell) writes:

>>> And, how do I maintain an
>>> erection while I am raping someone?

>>...Unfortunately, this is not a problem for all male humans.


>FYI: Lenore, the above quote was actually from Heiner Biesel, s.N.a (!),
>not from Steve Russell.

>(So it was *you* who came up with the "s.N.a." designation, I hear... Why?)


>>(Read the rather graphic case reported in today's Chicago Tribune. It
>>unmade my whole day. :-( )

>If you don't mind my asking, what happened?

A young mentally retarded woman was persuaded to engage in sexual activity
by some high school youths, neighbors of her and football players, who
told her that they would take her on a date if she performed these
activities. She performed oral sex on them, and they stuck inappropriate
objects in her vagina; then they left. The young woman stuck around the
basement where this all happened for hours. She was convinced the young
men would come back and take her on a date!

When court-appointed personnel examined her, she seemed to have no
idea that the young men were not her friends; she merely wondered why
they didn't come back! And she did not appear to have any sexual
feelings or desire for sexual release of her own.

Once again, I am not saying that sexual intercourse with a retarded
person is *necessarily* rape. But I think it clearly was in this case!

Lenore Levine 
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:6526 soc.men:21781 soc.women:21895
From: levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine)
Subject: The BEM Test
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 21:42:18 GMT

On the back of scratch paper from a campus recycling area, I found a
psychological test called the Bem Sex Role Inventory. This test lists
sixty adjectives that refer to human beings, some "masculine," some
"feminine," and some neutral (but you don't know which are which until
you complete the test). You are asked how well these adjectives describe
you; and whether you assign yourself a preponderance of masculine or
feminine adjectives, determines your "sex type."

The fact that I found this test, suggests that it was in use some time
in the past ten years. I am curious when and how it was devised, whether
it's still in use, and for what clients it's intended.

Following are the adjectives of significance in this test.

Feminine: yielding, cheerful, shy, affectionate, flatterable, loyal,
feminine, sympathetic, sensitive to the needs of others, understanding,
compassionate, eager to soothe hurt feelings, soft spoken, warm, tender,
gullible, childlike, does not use harsh language, loves children,
gentle.

Masculine: self-reliant, defends own beliefs, independent, athletic,
assertive, strong personality, forceful, analytical, has leadership
abilities, willing to take risks, makes decisions easily,
self-sufficient, dominant, masculine, willing to take a stand,
aggressive, acts as a leader, individualistic, competitive, ambitious. 

I urge you to draw your own conclusions from this test.

Lenore Levine
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.abortion.inequity