HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bkt@blacks.jpl.nasa.gov (Barrie Trinkle)
Subject: Re: Boycotts (was Re: Why are many low-income women fat?)
Organization: Image Analysis Systems Group, JPL
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 01:22:06 GMT

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

>In article <C0302E.5ox@news.cso.uiuc.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
>>rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:

>>>>Some people are raped in situations which they should have been
>>>>able to know was dangerous; 
>>
>>>	Typical date rape.
>>
>>>>others in situations that they could
>>>>not imagine were dangerous. 
>>
>>>	Typical out of the shadow rape.
>>
>>...And some date rapes, too.

>	Statistical anomaly.  

I can't seem to find the original posts to get the full context of these
lines, but on a purely anecdotal basis (I don't know much about rape
statistics and have almost no personal experience to draw on here) 
I'm not sure that I agree with the above and I'm surprised no
one else has picked up on this.  

I'm assuming that an "out of the shadow" rape means the stereotypical 
"dark night, quiet street" or "home alone and answered the doorbell"
scenario, and that "date rape" means the correspondingly stereotypical 
"Mary's boyfriend's roommate seemed nice so I went to the movies 
with him" or "Joe's brother offered to drive me home from the 
party" scenario.  Let's face it, if I'm alone after dark I KNOW I 
may be in danger and am correspondingly cautious:  lock all car doors,
park under street lights, wear flat shoes, tell friends where I'm going, etc.
But if I go to a party and meet a pleasant man who is already known
to a reliable friend of mine, the thought "He may be a rapist, so watch
out" just doesn't flash through my head when I shake hands with him. 
Oh, sure, I'm not going to go bar-hopping alone with him an hour after
meeting him, but if my friend said, "John's my first cousin, and
he's a really nice guy," I'd probably be willing to give John my phone 
my phone number and agree to go out with him when he called. 
Assuming John and I have a nice dinner, then he takes me home and 
overpowers me when I won't agree to have sex with him, how was I supposed 
to see this danger coming?  

Is what I described a "statistically anomalous" date rape, and if so, 
what would a typical date rape be like?  I'm not being disingenuous here-- 
I really want to know.
 
[If I completely misinterpreted Robert and Lenore's exchange, I hope
one of them will explain.  I did search back through the thread (which,
believe me, was not my idea of a good time) but had no luck.]
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
..nothing is so fatal to maidenly delicacy of speech as the run of 
a good library.
				Robertson Davies, _Tempest Tost_
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark)
Subject: Re: Discriminating Uni Faculties
Organization: ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Date: 22 Dec 92 01:48:51 GMT

jay@UUSERV.CC.UTAH.EDU (Jay Deuel) writes:

>>>Would anyone care to post statistics about the most unevenly organised
>>>faculties they know, in terms of numbers of women and men?  Here at the
>>>University of Western Australia, Arts is 75% women, 25% men, while
>>>Engineering is the exact opposite.  And most of the rest are close to
>>>50/50.  Someone I talked to from Monash University in Victoria said that
>>>this was not the case there, but couldn't prove it.  Does this sort of
>>>separation still happen in other places?  Because this, IMHO, is one of
>>>the few examples of a situation in which men can actually claim "men's
>>>rights", meaning themselves being discriminated against - let's face it,
>>>most of the time that phrase is just men whingeing because they're not
>>>in control any more...
>>>

>"Men's rights", and "women's rights", should include the ability to choose 
>the field that interests them!  It sounds like you're proposing that gender 
>considerations should outweigh qualifications, or number of applicants from 
>each [gender] group.  But you're not alone, many support Affirmative Action.

We should watch that whilst equalising the contribution of the sexes to
decision making, artistic expression, and scientific enquiry, that we do not
force people into unsuitable positions. Affirmative Action must be used
until a more equitable balance is produced. It should start from early
education. Women should be made to understand that humanity is progressing
slowly and haphazardly due to the fact that little over half the talent in
the place is being utilised. Girls should know they have much to contribute to
many professional fields and someone will be watching over them ensuring
they don't cop a rough deal from some fossilised male boss.

However there are basic neurological differences between males and females
that must be taken into consideration when ascertaining which professions
will benefit from equality of the sexes and which should predominantly be
female and which predominantly male. See my other post on this thread for a
small discussion on some of these differences or the September Special
Edition on Mind and Brain of the Scientific American for a small review of
these differences.

Luckily most people become interested in areas that they have a natural
affinity for. What we must do is remove the barriers from people fulfilling
their potential in the areas that they have chosen. 

Jeff.

Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
From: holzman@d0gslb.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 01:12:49 GMT
X-Posted-From: d0gslb.fnal.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1gth7bINNcfi@gap.caltech.edu>, peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah 
Peri) writes:
> dgross@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu (Dave Gross) writes:
> 
>>	"We men" are surrounded by violence from our circumcision in infancy
>>(no anaesthesia, thank you) to being bullied in elementary school; from trying
>>out for the football team in high school to registering for the draft; from
>>being several times more likely than our sisters to be murdered to watching
>>boxing on television; from visiting Arlington National Cemetery to running our
>>fingers along the Vietnam War Memorial.
> 
> [additional examples deleted]
> 
> So this gives you the right to do violence unto others???

Please quote the passage in which Dave Gross claims he has the right to do
violence unto others.  When you fail to find it, please apologize to him for
attempting to use this cheap tactic to discredit him.

-- 
Daniel B. Holzman                    | Eight Words the Witch's Rede Fufill:
HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET                  | An It Harm None, Do What You Will
HOLZMAN@FNALC.FNAL.GOV.INTERNET      |
                                     | All Acts of Love and Pleasure are
Love doesn't subtract,               | Her Rituals
   it multiplies    - Heinlein       |
                                     | Speak the Word.
Disclaimer:  Fermilab's far too large to have an opinion, let alone mine.
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:6533 soc.women:21903 soc.men:21792 talk.philosophy.misc:3082
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Damned Souls (was Re: Version Five)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 03:11:19 GMT

In article <C08roy.JFG@news.cso.uiuc.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
>gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:
>
>>In article <C058Hz.Fq2@news.cso.uiuc.edu> 
>>levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
>
>>>I am only defending the idea that affirmative action is *sometimes*
>>>reasonable. I would by no means defend all current uses of affirmative
>>>action.
>
>>Which one would you defend?
>
>If you are talking about affirmative action to give preference to groups
>of people (as opposed to individual evaluations of people that are in
>part based on their specific background), the best example is the
>Alabama State Trooper case.
>
>For many years, black people were not allowed to be Alabama state
>troopers. Note this is the sort of occupation that many black Americans
>choose. In any case, when this period of discrimination ended, there was
>a very large pool of black Alabamans who wanted to be state troopers,
>who could have performed the job acceptably, who had been passed over due to
>the previous policy of discrimination.
>
>The government of Alabama was ordered to institute a *temporary* policy
>of affirmative action, to amend for previous discrimination. This order
>was upheld by a Republican-dominated U.S. Supreme Court. 

Let me get this straight, there is a large number of -qualified- black
Americans just waiting to be Alabama State troopers? So why is AA needed
for them to get jobs? I could see of they were marginally qualified, or
marginally unqualified, but if there -were- qualified, what is the problem?

I really do not understand this example Lenore.
 
>>>>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.
>
>>Most employers and most schools ask all applicants to fill out
>>affirmative action when they apply.  In those forms one has to 
>>tell about his/her race and sex.  I'm a little surprised that
>>your school has not asked you to fill out any.
>
>My gender is obvious from my name. My race is Caucasian, which would not
>grant me any affirmative action preference. I do not list on
>applications any personal facts (beyond my gender) which would grant me 
>affirmative action preference.
>
>Lenore Levine


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Xref: sparky alt.feminism:6392 sci.skeptic:21613 soc.women:21808 soc.men:21653
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Mysogynist Bullshit
X-To: WENDY@SUNDOWN.MIL.WI.US
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 01:16:00 GMT

wendy@sundown.mil.wi.us writes...
WE> Jean M. Petrosino (jean@cs.cornell.edu) wrote:

WE> > How about this one:
WE> >       Why do men name their penises?
WE> >                               -Because they don't want a stranger making
WE> >                                99% of their decisions for them.

WE> Hahahahahahahahahaha....... I love it!

WE> Wendy


Oh, sure it's funny, but all that you'll accomplish, is to cause someone to
post a sexist joke about women.

This will of course annoy many women, some of whom will show displeasure by
posting a sexist joke about men, which will in turn...

Can't we just put an end to this ridiculous cycle by simply IGNORING the
idiots who make stupid, sexist jokes?

It isn't *that* difficult, I'd imagine.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Captain, spare me your inspirational anecdote, dammit!
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, 28 Dec 1992 18:15:02 GMT

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

(Re the importance of not blaming society.)

OK. I thought of a better example. When I was a teenager my family
took me to visit Mt. Vernon. The building really upset me, because
of the slave cabins. Yes, that's right, George Washington owned slaves!

Was this right? Hell, no! Did the slaves have any reasonable chance to
get out of slavery? Did they have decent options for their life,
even under a good master? Of course not! Was this the fault of the
slaves? No. Was this the fault of George Washington, who I am
postulating was a good man? Not particularly.

That is, sometimes injustices occur that are not caused by the
moral faults of individuals. I don't know who, or what, to blame
for them... If you don't want to call it society, call it something
else.

Some other points:

1) Before AIDS, there was not the inordinate reason to practice safe
sex there is now. That is, the only incurable venereal disease was
herpes, which does not cause major physical harm. 

I know in the 70's, reasonable and sensible people did *not* necessarily
practice "safe sex." There *were* emotional and practical reasons not to
be *extremely* promiscuous (have you read "Looking for Mr. Goodbar"?);
but many people got AIDS *without* being extremely promiscuous.

2) I do not think *any* society is perfect. But I do think some are
more just and comfortable than others. That is, there are no
utopias, but there are a lot of horror stories.

And if you are not interested in "social justice" what are you doing
on this group? I don't see what *practical* benefit there is to you in
it.

3) About the "Women's Studies" classes. I still think a detailed posting
about some of these classes would be of interest to everyone.

By the way, I don't think that unwise actions justify the penalty they
incur. Nevertheless, I must say that attending a "warm and fuzzy studies"
class, when the instructor doesn't seem to be on your side, and then
not dropping the class, is quite unwise. I would hope that one or two bad
grades is a lesson not to do this again.

Lenore Levine
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Subject: Re: Feminism's Lesbian Leaders (was: Why are there only men on)
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Originator: lunde@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Reply-To: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 14:33:36 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.173705.12384@midway.uchicago.edu> 
 mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>>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.
>

Robin Morgan has indeed been married to a man for some years. At the
same time it is also true that she has at various times in various
contexts called herself a bisexual or a lesbian. None of this is
especially secret.  You can find her early history and some rather
pointed remarks about the "lesbian-baiting" of feminists in
her book "Going Too Far" in the section "Lesbianism and Feminism:
Synonyms or Contradictions".

I would suggest that feminism has gone further than the
rest of society in addressing the questions of the "split"
between homosexuals and heterosexuals, with the results that
some barriers have been removed and lesbian/bisexual/het
distinctions are a bit more fuzzy and unclear than in society
at large, and that lesbians are more visible than in society at
large.

-- 
 Albert Lunde         | Interfaith  |     *Y*Y*      "A branch on the
 Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu |  Bisexual   |      *Y*        tree of life"
                      |  Feminist   |.......|.........................
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Mysogynist Bullshit
Date: 21 Dec 92 11:47:57
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
Distribution: usa
	<1992Dec21.000615.154@netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: payner@netcom.com's message of Mon, 21 Dec 1992 00:06:15 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.000615.154@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <1992Dec10.142534.16313@cs.cornell.edu> jean@cs.cornell.edu (Jean M. Petrosino) writes:
>>And Robert Shaeffer - don't give me that sociobiological crap about men being 
>>innately superior to women because of testosterone.  We don't know the true 
>>capacities of the female body because medical science finds it much more 
>>interesting to study male anatomy and simply generalize their findings to
>>female anatomy.  

>Bullshit, it is just easier and simpler. No monthly changes to take into
>account, and no pregnancies to complicate long term studies.

So, what are you saying here, Rich?  That it is, in fact, true, that
rather than studying women's bodies, scientists have simply generalized
form men's bodies?  Do you think that that is adequate information to
determine which is "suerpior"?

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: julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas)
Subject: Re: Mysogynist Bullshit
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 17:13:09 GMT

In article <1hshirINNh85@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> axb39@po.CWRU.Edu (Ann Burlingham) writes:
>
>>
>>Curiously, women seek medical aid more often than men, even excluding
>>gyn/obs visits. It may be true that women have more capacity for endurance,
>>but in practice, it would seem that they do not use it. Kinda makes one
>>wonder.
>
>I don't see the logic here. Maybe it's like the "women have to be twice as
>good as men to be thought half so" thing - how do you know women aren't
>enduring more? Checked any domestic violence (i.e., long-term sustained
>endurance) statistics lately? 
>

I think it's exactly that -- women have to be twice as sick to be taken
seriously.  Of course, once you're that ill treatment is much harder
and takes longer.  Science News reported on a study that showed women
were much less likely to get needed medicines and sugeries for heart
problems.  Many doctors brushed off women's complaints until they became
very serious.  Women are more likely to die in heart surgery primarily
because their health at the time is much worse than men undergoing
the surgery.  The reason that their health was so bad was because 
they had to wait longer before a doctor would operate.

Julie
DISCLAIMER:  All opinions here belong to my cat and no one else
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Retardation and Rape (was: Re: Mysogynist Bullshit)
Date: 31 Dec 92 02:03:39 GMT
Organization: The Devil's Advocate

In <C02ssH.C6A@world.std.com> srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller) writes:

>lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney) writes:

>>In <Bzy3Gv.7vH@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
>be, IMHO).

The Glen Ridge case is being tried under NJ law, so PL 130 (NY Law) is
irrelevant.  I don't have the NJ law in front of me, but the Model
Penal Code appears to distinguish between "rape" and "gross sexual
imposition" which is a lesser offense and which includes having sex
with a person incapable of giving consent.

 
-- 
larry kolodney:(lkk@panix.com) 
_(*#&)#*&%)@(*^%_!*&%^!)*&#+!*&$+!?&%+!*&^_)*&#%)*&^%#+&
The past is not dead, it's not even past.   - Wm. Faulkner
From: jean@cs.cornell.edu (Jean M. Petrosino)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Working with Women vs. Working with Men
Date: 23 Dec 92 17:06:37 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853

Robert Stephen Rodgers sums it up in the following statements:
>
>       "If women cannot tell the difference, well then--tough."
>
>(Thanks for making the effort to bridge the communication gap between women
> men with this enlightening statement.)


        The effort has been made a number of times and failed.

        Frankly, I don't much care about having happy-fun communication--
        it's not the job we're supposed to be doing.

	>Okay, Mr. Serious.<

>       "...but your partner insists on PLAYING with a thesaurus
>       and PRETTYFYING all of what you're writing instead of aiding
>       the task at hand...After an hour or two, you're liable to
>       strangle them so that they'll SHUT UP long enough for you to
>       think."
>
>( I think your paralelling women with children who need to be (physically)
>  shut up is a nice touch.)


        Come off it.  Is your reading level really that low?

	>Are you really so simple as to not consider the language that 
	you use?  I suppose you paralell black men with children as well.<


>       to getting the job done."
>
>(...by your guidelines and time-table.)


        Well, since that's all there is (they seem unable to make
        guidelines or a timetable for themselves that they're willing to
        stick to--and this includes timetables made as a team) that's
        the way it'll have to be.

	>What would we do without men like you who will take charge when
	us women just can't seem to get it together?<


>       "It is *not* a power issue."
>
>(...that you are willing to  see, discuss, or begin to understand.)


        Ah, the cry of the pathetic.  "You don't understand"
        It is not my job to constantly make every effort to understand
        a group that refuses to be honest and up-front about what
        it is you're trying to do.  It is not *my* job to try and
        make efforts to understand and empathize a process that fails
        to get the job done.
--
	>And I suppose it is also not your job to understand anyone or
	anything that does not center upon your 'needs.'<

	>Calling someone pathetic implys they want your sympathy.  EMPATHY
	is what I give, and what I ask for.<

     
                       " Equality is a delusion."
				Translation: Suck it up.
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Back Again To (Un)Father - NOT!
Note: And just how many times _have_ I NOTted a subject line, anyway?  :-)
X-To: MICHAL LEAH PERI
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 03:37:00 GMT

peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes...
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>Would it be equally OK to for man to make such decisions for women?

>What equivalent decisions would that be?

Ah, for instance - The woman doesn't want to raise the child, but the man
does.  Is she forced to support a child whom she doesn't want?

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Gravity: It's more than just a fragrance.  It's the LAW!"
   - Will Steeves, President, GOiDS "R" We, Inc.

 * SLMR 2.1a * Be Alert, we need all the lerts we can get.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism