HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lib@cbnews.cb.att.com (Lib)
Subject: Re: Was Clinton's victory America's message to the Anti-Choice?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 18:49:28 GMT

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 why he said he doesn't know how many Clinton will get
to appoint, but you stated the obvious with great clarity.

Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: More Women Than Men Prefer to be Alone
Date: 10 Nov 92 18:28:44 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: redondo.sw.stratus.com

In article <1992Nov10.172327.29144@u.washington.edu>, twain@milton.u.washington.edu (Barbara Hlavin) writes:
> In article <1doj8oINNjkk@news.aero.org> foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:

[excellent, well thought-out commentary by Barbara deleted]

> Had I been part of that study six years ago, I would definitely have 
> answered "prefer to be alone."  Not so today. 

Also, we have no idea who did this study or what the methodology was.  We've
all seen the write-in surveys done by Ann Landers and others, which self-select
the respondents.  Basically, it's one of those factoids which is pretty much
meaningless without more details.


> --Barbara 

-- 

#include <std_disclaimer.h>

Dan S.
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 14:29:58 GMT

In article <1d810bINN74m@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>
>>The two issues that come
>>up are infidelity (grounds for divorce still, I believe) and the fact
>>that the husband is automatically assumed to be father of the child, and
>>assumes full responsibility. 
>
>These are real problems, and deserve solutions.
>(1) make "irreconcileable differences" the *only* cause for divorce in
>	in the eyes of the law

Why? This looks like an even bigger problem.

>(2) get rid of the assumption of the husband's paternity

This is rather consistant with the idea behind marrige. I think that
you have misidentified this as a problem. If the husband is not the
father, then -that- is the problem. 
 
>								--  M.


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Xref: sparky soc.women:19276 soc.men:19041
From: dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: Get a CLUE, a LARGE CLUE
Date: 11 Nov 92 03:04:28 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: redondo.sw.stratus.com

In article <1992Nov10.230701.26889@u.washington.edu>, gwangung@byron.u.washington.edu (Roger Tang) writes:
> In article <1dp0bdINNc8u@transfer.stratus.com> dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber) writes:
> >In article <1992Nov10.174255.478@u.washington.edu>, gwangung@byron.u.washington.edu (Roger Tang) writes:
> >> In article <1doh4kINNaie@transfer.stratus.com> dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber) writes:

[deleted for brevity]

> 	No, but this isn't what's being talked about. There >IS< some
> semantic problems involved here; I'd differentiate between individual racism
> and institutional racism.  There's less debate on the first; there's more
> on the latter, particularly if you conflate the two.

What isn't being talked about?  My analogy?  It was precisely that, an analogy.  I fail
to see how it is any less apt than your analogy about blowing people away.  In any event,
my objection to this distinction isn't that I don't think it doesn't exist; rather that
advocates of this position frequently don't seem to have their definitions straight.
Example:

white Fred: I just don't like working with blacks.
Jane: You're a racist!

black Bill: I hate the f**king honkies!
white Sally: You're racist!
black Bill: No, I'm not.  Blacks can't be racist!

I've heard variations of both of these from the same person.  By the distinction you've
drawn, seems to me that Bill is getting away with something, no?  Either that, or Fred
isn't racist (just prejudiced).

> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 	"I got into theatre originally to pick up girls. Unfortunately, all I
> found were women..."
> e-mail:  gwangung@u.washington.edu

-- 

#include <std_disclaimer.h>

Dan S.
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Subject: Re: A GREAT Night for Americans!  (Women especially!)
Date: 06 Nov 92 07:07:25 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Nov4.153505.29163@news.nd.edu> slarsen@bach.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:
>In article <7868@transfer.stratus.com> lmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com writes:
>>For the first time since I started voting in 1976, I voted a straight winning  
>>ticket.  I am delighted and a little surprised.

I am a *LOT* surprised. Republicans have everything because they can
buy everything - that's why they're Republicans, right?? I assumed
Georgie & Dan would pool their families' portfolios and pull it out
somehow. 

I still haven't come down. This is the first time that the candidate I
voted for won - also the first time that I was voting FOR as well as
voting AGAINST. Whoa - a president that I can listen to talk on the
tv without wanting to pull an Elvis (and blast it away....)

>>[Republicans have made the]
>>"big tent" of politics a little lean-to where only certain people were  
>>welcomed.  

Thank you...I see it this way too.

>The Republicans have become too scary for me.  It's too bad, because I 
>have lots of respect for folks like Dick Lugar (he should have been Bush's
>man from Indiana) and other selected Republicans.

Me too. Pat Robertson's KEYNOTE speech at the Republican convention
- handpicked, approved by Bush & co - cinched that I would not vote
Republican. The amount of hate that was expressed during that 4-day
infomercial was downright scary.

I am glad that Jennifer Dunn (former chair of the Washington state
Republican party, who was long gone before this year's state convention,
where the Grand Old Party took firm stands against divorce and yoga) 
was elected to the House. I have long respected her stands on the issues.
But I am kinda glad she's the *only* GOP in our state delegation.
And I'm wiping my brow over the governer's race...Lowry by 4% (whew!)

-jen
 
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: purdon@cons1.mit.edu (James Purdon)
Subject: Re: Was Clinton's victory America's message to the Anti-Choice?
Organization: .
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 16:02:45 GMT

In article <92311.022651KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>You were watching a different election.  The issue of abortion was virtually
>-never- addressed, by either sides.  It was never mentioned in the vice-pre-
>sidential debates. And I never saw representatives of NOW or Planned Parent-

I must have been watching a different election too, then, and especially
a different vice-presidential debate.  In the debate I saw, Al Gore
asked Dan Quale to state that he (Dan) supported a woman's right to
choose, and Dan wouldn't.

-- 
Jim

Once I was single.  Now I am married.
Xref: sparky soc.women:19526 alt.feminism:4373 soc.men:19244
From: johnston@fys.ruu.nl (Helen Johnston)
Subject: Re: Proof Spike Lee is WHITE
Organization: Physics Department, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 09:05:40 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.142226.1@mdcbbs.com> rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:
>
>  Within that part of the population who are the descendents of
>slaves, there is a tendancy for greater strength because the southern
>slave owners created an environment which bred for strength, and in which
>the weaker members often did not survive to reproduce. It is morally 
>offensive that such brutal methods were applied to human beings, but
>it did happen. The modern day descendants of those slaves are, on
>average, taller and stronger than the descendants of those Africans
>who stayed Africans (i.e. avoided the slave hunters). Remember the documentary
>where Alex Haley, the author of "Roots", finally visited the village
>of his ancestors along the Gambia River? He wasn't just taller than his
>relatives, he towered over them far more than the difference in medical
>care alone could account for.
>
So what do you make of my friend of Japanese ancestry, born and bred in
Australia? When she went back to Japan to visit her grandparents, she
wasn't just taller than her relatives, she towered over them. Far more,
you would doubtless say (were she black), than the difference in
medical care alone could account for. She is 5'6"; her grandmother is
about 4'10". She complained she couldn't turn around in her
grandmother's kitchen! Yet I can assure you that no-one was breeding
HER parents for height or strength.

I think you SERIOUSLY underestimate the effects of good nutrition.
-- 
Helen Johnston       | Astronomye is an harde thynge and yvel forto knowe.
johnston@fys.ruu.nl  |      -- William Langland, Piers the Plowman
From: dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Eva Clayton bio
Date: 10 Nov 92 16:53:22 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: redondo.sw.stratus.com

In article <1992Nov10.154649.29316@rock.concert.net>, bing@jazz.concert.net (Carter E. Bing) writes:
> >
> >This thread started when Carter Bing (bing@jazz.concert.net) posted
> >"Eva Clayton bio" (<1992Nov4.153308.16163@rock.concert.net>), including

[deleted]

> 	Her being elected "with the help of the
> rich-white-liberal Handgun Control, Inc" is nothing more than
> the NRA rhetoric that is common now. I find the arugment that "we
> have to protect our right to bear arms to be both flawed and funny.
> First the average citizen can`t purchase the hardware need to
> wage a war with a corrupt government and second the "right to
> bear arms" was in regards to rasing a state militia. This fact
> is often left out when this issue is debated. The fact is that
> gun purchase should be regulated in the same manner as any
> dangerous product should be regulated.                     

This really isn't the right group to discuss this silly misconception, so I'm
setting followups to talk.politics.guns, where it's been hashed and rehashed
dozens of times.  Unfortunately, the lesson (including repeated verbatim
quotes of the 2nd amendment and the meanings of the words in it) never seems
to take.  Oh well...

[deleted]

-- 

#include <std_disclaimer.h>

Dan S.
From: mikep@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Mike Powell)
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 00:55:38 GMT
Subject: Re: A GREAT Night for Americans!  (Women especially!)
Organization: HP Santa Rosa Site (SRSD MWTD)
Newsgroups: soc.women

	
	Kurt writes (amazingly):

"So if you're a "straight female ticket" voter, then congratulations and
I hope you didn't have to ask too much for assistance."


--------------------

	Kurt, I didn't see anything in her post that indicated that
	she was a "straight ticket" voter of _any_ type.....  apart
	from being thrilled that women candidates were doing well
	this time around...   I know you said "So if...", but that
	doesn't excuse your tone or abrasiveness...

	Ease up pal.  ok?

	-Mike-

Newsgroups: soc.women
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: getting fired after making sexual harrassment complaint - illegal?
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:56:54 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.075320.27151@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:

)At the risk of sounding as if I'm giving you the brushoff, it really
)doesn't matter what "others" on the net might think.  What matters is
)what a competent lawyer (hopefully whose specialty is employees'
)rights and/or sexual harassment cases) thinks.  This woman you're
)talking about needs to consult a lawyer, not listen to our ramblings
)on here.  Please encourage her to do so.

I'd agree professional advice is in order.  The EEOC might also be able
to help too.  There are some reasonably good books on the topic of sexual
harassment laws and the associated system in the library - these will not be
as good as talking to a good lawyer, but might aid in forming an opinon of a
lawyer's competence and explain some of the alternatives besides hiring a
private attorney.  A good attorney would explain all the options
(including other than hiring them) IMO - there may be some out there who are
not that ethical, however.

Newsgroups: soc.women
From: celeste%express@freedom.msfc.nasa.gov (Celeste)
Subject: Re: Emotional Cripples and Women in Combat
Followup-To: soc.women,soc.men,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex
Organization: AEGIS
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 14:11:05 GMT

Julius Ceaser was had this limbric said about him by his troops:

"Ceaser! A man to every woman! And a woman to every man!"

And Ceaser and his toops had conqured Gaul!

Celeste
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 06:02:44 GMT

In article <1dca07INNgcj@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>
>>1.  The father denies fatherhood and demands a paternity test.
>>If it's negative, he "wins."  If it's positive, he will have
>>severely reduced his chances for custody.  ("If you doubt your
>>child is yours *and* you want to escape your responsibilities,
>>then how can I expect you to be a good parent?" asks the judge.)
>
>
>I jsut don't understand this.  Do youmean that your love for the
>child is conditional on whether its DNA matches yours?
>
>							--  Michal

You know, this may be another point where biology gets in the way.
The woman always knows that it is -her- child. 


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: soc.women
From: jrmo@volta.att.com (J.R.Moore)
Subject: Re: Sad Day for Liberty
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 16:19:41 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.151227.3988@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
>In <1992Nov6.081944.2669@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU writes:
>
>  I certainly have NO problem with the intent of such laws -- just the prec-
>edent of group-specific legislation.
>
>> >  There is no doubt that people are killed for their beliefs/sexual 
>> >orientation
>> >or what have you.  I simply fail to see how giving some group special status
>> >is going to help things out at all.  Violence against people, for whatever
>> >reasons, should be treated the same, regardless of thier group affiliations.
>> >Why do they get special treatment?  Why do non-special groups get left out?
>> 
>> I think the belief is that if your color, sexual orientation, whatever
>> make you a more likely target for violence, the hate laws may just
>> reduce that likelihood.  Unfortunately, laws against hate crimes are
>> often the easiest way to get police and DAs to work for victims.
>
>  I am unaware that *any* laws against violent acts such as assualt or murder
>have ever done diddly to prevent them.

But we have seen that laws favoring one group over another has sparked
hatred and violence.  Contrary to PC thinking, being as member of a group
such as white male, does not entitle that person to a life of luxury.  While
those who have enjoyed the most success in our country are white males, most
white males are not very successful.  Being lumped into a group, white male
Catholic straight etc., has shown me how terrible classifying people by
external charactersitics is.  All people should be judged by the content
of their character and not the color of their skin or any other group you
can lump them into.  Seriously, real serious, any new laws favoring gay
to straight by giving gays AA status will not curb hate violence, only
amplify it.  Homosexual rights supporters would be better served by trying
to gain family status for any people committed to living as a family unit.
Favorable tax treatment, inclusion on insurance, etc.  I think the neutrality
of such legislation, to allow individuals determine the scope of their family
by consensual, legal agreement, not necessarily marriage, would better serve
homosexuals, but also single parent homes, siblings living together, older 
children living with parents, etc.

Family values.  Let's let individuals define their family.

Joe Moore
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Sad Day for Liberty
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 08:19:44 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.204156.29353@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
>
>  Gays and lesbians deserve protection.  Heterosexual white males deserve
>protection.  Jewish Afro-Italians deserve protection.  Why single out a 
>particular group?  The Constitution as is should serve to protect ALL indi-
>viduals.  The problem lies not in the law, but how it is applied -- a fault
>which would not be repaired by more legislation.

You know, this sounds good, but...

Cracker Barrel, a restaurant chain in the Southeast, fired men and
women simply because they're gay or lesbian.  How would a state law
which says that it's illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual
orientation hurt straights?  Right now it's legal in nearly all states
to fire, refuse to hire, rent to, etc. lesbigay people.  

>  There is no doubt that people are killed for their beliefs/sexual orientation
>or what have you.  I simply fail to see how giving some group special status
>is going to help things out at all.  Violence against people, for whatever
>reasons, should be treated the same, regardless of thier group affiliations.
>Why do they get special treatment?  Why do non-special groups get left out?

I think the belief is that if your color, sexual orientation, whatever
make you a more likely target for violence, the hate laws may just
reduce that likelihood.  Unfortunately, laws against hate crimes are
often the easiest way to get police and DAs to work for victims.

>  I do not support special treatment for groups simply because they feel 
>oppressed (and yes, often the oppresion is real).  ALL people *deserve* EQUAL
>protection and opportunity.  I support the removal of restrictive laws (whites
>only, gays in the military) but not the imposition of presciptive ones (20% 
>minority involvment required).  We cannot create a color-gender-sexual orient-
>ation-blind society by creating laws and practices that *highlight* those 
>differences.

Laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation,
color, religion, etc. are not AA.  I've yet to hear of one law that
suggests that there should be quotas for lesbigay people.

Newsgroups: soc.women,talk.politics.theory,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.classics
From: pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis)
Subject: Re: Plato's Views on Women
Keywords: Plato, politics, women, feminism
Organization: Precipitating Pendulums Postal Party Poopers
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 18:35:06 GMT

In article <Bx9JK3.35s@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>In article <1992Nov3.220658.27483@midway.uchicago.edu> koc5@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>>As a newcomer to women's studies and to feminist philosophy I could also use 
>>refernces to the most important recent work.  The University of Chicago,
>>where I attend, seems unusually benighted in its lack of a women's studies
>>department or even a women's studies bibliographer.
>
>Since you are just getting started, I would think that the first order of
>bussiness ought to be to seriously question whether "feminist philosophy"
>is a valid field of study.  In my view, to place sex at such a 
>fundamental position in one's way of thinking is simply absurd.
>If you think that feminist philosophy is a valid area of though, do 
>you also think that there ought to be such a thing as "black philosophy",
>"bald philosophy", "poor philosophy", "male philosophy", or "blue-eyed
>people who live in Hollywood philosophy"?  I don't.  Certainly one can
>use philosophy to understand issues like race, sex, baldness, economics, and
>one's unique characteristics, but the philosophical principles are universal,
>not particular to certain kinds of people.

To the extent that social and cultural mores over the last few
thousand years have established the existence of more than one gender,
and divided them largely on the basis on biological sex, it seems
likely that there are philosophical viewpoints that are largely
segregated along the same lines.

That the study of these viewpoints is currently called "feminist
philosophy" is a likely more a function of history, not biology.

Note that I am an "egalitarian", not a "difference", feminist.

-- paul
-- 
There is hardly anything in the world that some man cannot make a
little worse and sell a little cheaper, and the people who consider
price only are this man's lawful prey.
						John Ruskin
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: Was Clinton's victory America's message to the Anti-Choice?
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: NAS Program, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 20:09:41 GMT
Distribution: na


Followups set to Talk.abortion

In article <1992Nov6.183726.12720@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
 
>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.
 
Darn good point Simon.  You are getting much better at stating the obvious.
 
Over the last twelve years the Reagan/Bush administration have appointed
about 65% of the 846 life-tenured federal judges.  There have been a 
large number of judges that have put off retirement waiting for an
administration that does not answer to the religious right.  According
to todays S.J. Mercury News, it appears upon inauguration, Clinton 
will have the opportunity to immediately appoint about 100 federal 
judges.  
 
The last Democrat President to appoint a Supreme Court Judge was
25 years ago when LBJ appointed Thurgood Marshall.  Its assumed
that Harry Blackmun (84 years old) and possibly Byron White (75 
years old) will both retire shortly after the inauguration.  Both
appear to have put off retirement in hopes that this election 
would result in an administration not controlled by the religious
right.
 
A few interesting names mentioned as replacements on the Supreme
Court are Laurence Tribe of Harvard University and Amalya Lyle
Kearse of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York.  Both
are considered highly competent, but also highly liberal 
jurists.  Laurence Tribe has written one of the best books
(IMHO) on abortion.  

>Simon
 
Dan King
Newsgroups: soc.women