HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Subject: Re: Why are many low-income women fat? (was Re: Separate but Equal?)
Date: 16 Dec 92 07:34:56 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Dec15.192754.2012@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.004406.27226@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>>It is a LIE that fat people are bad, that fat people are ill, that fat
>>people are sick, that fat people can't be fit, that fat people's lives
>>would be perfect if they were thin. 
>So stop spreading obnoxious lies. These are ALL subjects of your invention
>BTW, except one. 

No, they are what I've been told for the last 15 years from family,
from doctors, from teachers, and from "friends". 

>>                                       Of course, these LIES generate lots
>>of money for the diet industry. Anorexia and bulimia? Better than being fat.
>You have your own private agenda, I can see that. 

Somewhat. When I see someone stating unilaterally that fat people
cannot be physically fit, I become angry. Unless you are defining
fit == !fat, at which point I wish you'd define your terms. 

>Does it even matter what
>I say or do not say? 

Depends on what you mean. I no longer want to kill myself because
I'm fat, if that's what you want to know. I no longer cry when 
reading words like yours which imply that fat people are substandard.

If you mean that I misunderstood you, that you did not mean to imply
that fat people are substandard, then yes, it matters. I'll kill this
thread on my newsreader and shut up.

>I can see that you have gone completely non-rational, and no discussion is
>possible. You show your own prejudices here as well.

I've HAD people tell me, for 15 years, that I'm fat and therefore 
stupid, ugly, crappy, shitty, and not going to amount to anything.
IN THOSE WORDS. Usually following "you're fat because you eat
too much and don't do aerobics". Again, I am repeating what TEACHERS
and DOCTORS have told me, not just peers. "You will have a shitty life" 
"You won't amount to anything" "You will never get married" "I don't
understand how you get such good grades when you can't lose a little
weight".

I've been hit before, Rich. Excuse me for raising shields
when seeing someone else lock on phasers. 

(half smile)

-jen
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
From: michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael)
Subject: Re: Gender differences - Sophie Germain
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 13:51:47 GMT

In <2199@newsserver.cs.uwindsor.ca> bouche2@server.uwindsor.ca (BOUCHER DAVID            ) writes:
>This may seem disingenuous to some people, but why does it even MATTER
>whether or not the proportions of men and women in science and math are 
>equal?  As long as everyone is free to follow their own interests, most 
>people are bound to gravitate to whatever they do best.

In the long run it won't matter.  But in the short run, there is still
pressure in our culture against women becoming a part of scientific
fields.  This cultural pressure is a leftover from the days when women
didn't enjoy the same rights men did.  Its slowly dissappearing, but it
hasn't gone yet.  Working towards equal numbers is one way of speeding up
the removal of this cultural pressure.

>It has been my experience that most non-scientists are not very interested
>in science, regardless of whether they are male or female.

Yes, in the long run, this will no doubt be the rule by which some do join
and some don't join the fields of science.

    Michael Stanley (michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Subject: Re: ABORTION IS MURDER
Date: 15 Dec 92 20:24:09 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Dec14.051026.14784@pellns.alleg.edu> romingk@pell3l0.alleg.edu (Karl Rominger) writes:
>
>Just curious, how did this headline  initially make you react?
>
>Do you agree?  Disagree?
>

A very interesting question. I think, however, that it would make more
sense to discuss it in talk.abortion, where by net.convention this belongs.

-jen
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg)
Subject: Re: Mysogynist Bullshit
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 01:01:13 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.193539.17001@wam.umd.edu> sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell) writes:
>In article <Bz9G04.6GM@javelin.sim.es.com> biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel) writes:
>><Bz2DDM.8M0@javelin.sim.es.com> 
>><1992Dec12.021406.13333@u.washington.edu> 
>><1992Dec12.043838.13722@midway.uchicago.edu>
>>
>>mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:
>>
    humor deleted
>
>*Steve R shaking his head and laughing*
>
Yeah, it kind of bothers me that this is my favorite thread on the
board right now.  Keep up the good work...

-David "ZZYZX" Steinberg- King of the ellipses
       (dsteinbe@emmy.nmsu.edu)
**********************************************************************
*"There's a dog in the station  *"I can't believe I'm a junior and a *
* With a bad reputation         * film major, when all I really      *
* That's a sign of the nation's * wanted in this life was to marry a *
* Decay"                        * lobsterman and cook fish."         *
* -Phish                        * -a letter from Christie Searing    *
**********************************************************************


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: st890674@pip.cc.brandeis.edu
Subject: Re: I'm So Confused
Reply-To: st890674@pip.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 03:33:21 GMT

Having a man find you attractive should not entail being sexually harassed.  
"Nice tits (ass, etc.) is not an example of someone trying to tell you you're
attractive, but trying to tell you "I have power over you, to demean you
and humiliate you."  You aren't confused at all: you recognized the difference
between a sex object and being found attractive by men, and you're right.
-jenna
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Candada Massacre
Date: 11 Dec 92 14:28:41
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1992Dec11.170600.28063@netcom.com>
	<MUFFY.92Dec11101635@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<1992Dec11.213722.323@netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: payner@netcom.com's message of Fri, 11 Dec 1992 21:37:22 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.213722.323@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <MUFFY.92Dec11101635@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec11.170600.28063@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>Solving the problem of violence in general will also solve the problem
>>>of violence against women (tm) will it not?
>>
>>Perhaps.  However, that doesn't mean that people will all choose to work
>>on such a large problem.  If you agree that they are different problems,
>>then why shouldn't people choose to work on one that they feel more
>>strongly about, or which they feel is more soluble in the short term?

>What makes you think that they are not the same problem?

I have said this in every post.  If you still haven't understood it, I
don't think I can say it in a way which you will understand.  Maybe
someone else will be able to.

>What if the laws were drafted which made violence a crime,

There have been.  It hasn't solved the problem of people targeting women
because they are women.

>Would this not address the problem of violence against women, as well
>as the larger issue?

It hasn't, so I guess it wouldn't.

>>>>Women are singled out as targets by many violent people, and this is a
>>>>problem disctinct from the problem of violence in general.
>>>Posted statistics have shown that men are more often the victims of
>>>violence, and that women hit men about as often as men hit women. What
>>>exactly is it you are referring too?
>>I didn't say anything about frequency.  
>I did, and I think it is relevant. Do you think it irrelevant?

It is irrelevant to what I was saying.  I am not making an argument that
violence against women is more or less prevalent than any other form of
violence, merely that it exists.

>We should not treat all men as criminally
>insane in light of one nut with a gun.

No one has proposed this.  What does this have to do with the issue?

>Nor should we make 911 a gun
>pointed at all men, usable by all women.

No one has proposed this.  What does this have to do with the issue?

>This is -not- justice.

It is also -not- relevant.

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,sci.skeptic,soc.women,soc.men
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: Dr. Goldberg Replies to "Patriarchy" Debate
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 03:12:37 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.202915.12466@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>
>	I think that he's being unreasonable. He does not seem to have
>taken the possibility of "equi-archy" or "ambi-archy" seriously, where
>both sexes can have positions of responsibility or authority
>seriously.
>
>	Nor does he seem to have taken the criticisms made by Leacock
>and others seriously. It looks as if the gender-roles question has
>been a big blind spot in anthropology for some time -- not taking
>women seriously enough -- and it is only in recent decades that it is
>being corrected.

Did you actually *read* Goldberg's response, carefully? Yes, he does
take seriously the claim that there COULD be an "equi-archy"; the
problem is that nobody has presented actual EVIDENCE that such has
ever existed. And just because some figure that might or might not
be a goddess is holding an object that might be a battle axe, or
might equally be a butterfly-on-a-stick, does NOT constitute proof
of the existence of a society whose hierarchy was not overwhelmingly
filled by males. We simply have no real knowledge of the social
organization of Neolithic societies - translation - New Stone Age,
OK? They did NOT leave nice, clear written records for us, telling us
who ruled when and what the men and women did. So in
the absence of evidence to the contrary, the only reasonable conclusion
is that they were the same as any other known human society, i.e.
ruled by males.

And you're QUITE wrong to say (once again) that Goldberg simply
ignores Leacock's supposed "evidence". See "Response to Leacock
and Livingstone by Steven Goldberg," in _The American Anthropologist_,
Vol. 77, Number 1, March, 1975, p. 69.

>
>	And I have not seen a detailed (yes, _detailed_) critique of
>Marija Gimbutas's work from him. Maybe he's afraid of being proven
>wrong :-) One-liners about Minoan goddesses wielding what look like
>double axes don't count.

True, he has not written such. Perhaps we can prod him into doing so? :)

But if it's any consolation, I'm putting together a sort of "Goddess
file" myself, bringing together in one place (for undoubtedly the first
time) the reasons for doubting the nice cozy little picture that Gimbutas
presents (which one of her colleagues terms her "Walt Disney" version
of prehistory!). For now, that will have to do. :(


-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!


     "Mystical explanations are considered deep. The truth is that
      they are not even superficial."

                   - Friedrich Nietzsche    (The Gay Science: 126)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: Women in Mathematics: One Final Thought
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 21:39:44 GMT

jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:
>mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:

>>So, let's see: from [Sheaffer's] argument (I only changed a couple of nouns
>>here) smart boys who study hard in school should expect to be failures 
>>in the job market, right?   

>I think his point is that the job market looks for whatever it looks
>for, so smart boys who study hard but find they don't succeed as much
>as oafs have no particular grounds for complaint.  There may be
>important things that oafs are better at than smart and studious boys.
>
>Of course, if the smart boys do succeed, that's OK too.

Could be, could be.  But as I read Sheaffer, he said that lack of
aggressiveness was naturally linked to underrepresentation in 
influential positions in the economy.  While this aggression
based arguments seems natural when applied to women, it looks a 
little weird when applied to "smart boys who study hard."  Kinda 
makes the univariate aggression model look bad, IMO.

I'm just looking for consistency instead of ad hoc explanations.

rini
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael)
Subject: Re: CALLING ALL WOMEN..WHERE ARE YOU?
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 14:14:26 GMT

In <1992Dec15.003704.4792@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:
>The innanity of this blows my mind.  But let's just try one more time:

Blows my mind to.  What difference does it make?  If either of you are
wrong, fine. :)  Let it go already! :)

    Michael Stanley (michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu)
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Back Again To (Un)Father
Date: 13 Dec 1992 21:35:49 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu
Keywords: Two Legs Good, Three Legs Bad...

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:

>In article <1ge2cdINNlqn@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>> 
>>>At 53, I can
>>>count on some of you to keep the economy going so I
>>>can get my social security and dividend checks as I
>>>hobble around twenty or thirty years hence; but for
>>>_you_, there will evidently be no next generation.
>>>Good luck!)
>>
>>It's not a dearth of procreation that's bugging this
>>group.  It's a reluctance to pay for their progeny.

>No, the problem being given full 18-year financial responsibilty
>for a decision that they have no say in. Note that this is -after-
>both parties made the decision to have sex.

Like I was saying....

-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: jean@cs.cornell.edu (Jean M. Petrosino)
Subject: Violence
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 13:48:38 GMT

I was thinking about this net last night and all the arguments about violence 
that have been flying around.  Many men have been arguing here that men are as
much victims of violence as women.  Okay, I'll give you that one.  But I ask
you, since women commit very little crime in general, who do you think is 
committing the majoritiy of violent acts?  I think the men here have to stop
directing their anger at feminists who call attention to violence issues, and
re-direct their anger at the men who are committing these violent acts.



Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Gender differences - Sophie Germain
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 22:55:09 GMT

In article <michael.724427507@glia> michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael) writes:
>In <2199@newsserver.cs.uwindsor.ca> bouche2@server.uwindsor.ca (BOUCHER DAVID            ) writes:
>>This may seem disingenuous to some people, but why does it even MATTER
>>whether or not the proportions of men and women in science and math are 
>>equal?  As long as everyone is free to follow their own interests, most 
>>people are bound to gravitate to whatever they do best.
>
>In the long run it won't matter.  But in the short run, there is still
>pressure in our culture against women becoming a part of scientific
>fields.  This cultural pressure is a leftover from the days when women
>didn't enjoy the same rights men did.  Its slowly dissappearing, but it
>hasn't gone yet.  


>                  Working towards equal numbers is one way of speeding up
>the removal of this cultural pressure.

Sorry, what we have is another cultural pressure. And it has neve beed shown
that in the absence of cultural pressures, equal numbers should result. 
This body count metric is not a measure of discrimination, there are no cross 
checks or sanity checks of any kind. 

Like using water on the ground as a measure of rain, it will indeed tell 
you that there has been rain. But it will also tell you that there has been 
rain when it snows, when a water main breaks, when someone nearby washes 
their car...
 
>>It has been my experience that most non-scientists are not very interested
>>in science, regardless of whether they are male or female.
>
>Yes, in the long run, this will no doubt be the rule by which some do join
>and some don't join the fields of science.

Maybe you should share your crystal ball with others. It sound like you
are just parroting political ideology. Last time this happened when people
listened was with Marxism. I have not noticed that the followers of Marx
came even remotely close to their ideal goals, or that one was better off
under their rule.
 
>    Michael Stanley (michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu)


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Going Down the Mine
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 18:52:22 GMT

In article <1go6luINN3n4@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>DPIROT@vm.ucs.UAlberta.CA writes:
>
>[article deleted]
>
>>5. One thing that was not mentioned was how the Unemployment
>>Insurance Commission would treat those who refused the retraining
>>offer. Recent changes in policy could result in benefits being
>>denied those who refuse alternate employment in lieu of
>>termination. Would the female office workers be treated differently
>>than their male counterparts? The UIC has indicated that persons
>>leaving their jobs because of sexual harassment might be given
>>special consideration.
>
>I don't see that this is sexual harassment at all.  The company could
>have just laid off all the excess office workers.  Instead they're 
>giving them (both male and female, equally, I hope) the opportunity
>to retrain for a new career that's almost twice as profitable (33K->60K!)
>If the office workers (of either gender) decline to take this opportunity
>that's their decision.  They're not being forced to go into the mines!
>
>One caveat:  It sounds like the company may need to do some re-training
>of it's pre-existing miners to prevent harassment (sexual or otherwise)
>of the newly trained miners.

More to the point, they need training in what is -legally- considered
harrasment, and to know that it is not necessary to do anything or
even to be there.

I reject the implication that men will automatically harrass women
if not subject to penalties, and continuously warned. For those who
would not, it is insulting to warn, and those few who will, will
probably do so anyway.
 
>							--  Michal
>-- 
>
>                                                --  Michal
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Of course there's no reason!  


Rich

payner@netcom.com
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: ABORTION IS MURDER
Date: 15 Dec 92 05:18:06 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Dec14.051026.14784@pellns.alleg.edu> romingk@pell3l0.alleg.edu (Karl Rominger) writes:
>
>
>Just curious, how did this headline  initially make you react?
>
>Do you agree?  Disagree?
>

Flame bait, ignore.

Rich

payner@netcom.com
From: michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Mysogynist Bullshit
Date: 18 Dec 92 17:13:28 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Washington

In <1992Dec16.185643.15533@wam.umd.edu> sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell) writes:

>In article <michael.724530564@glia> michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael) writes:
>>I imagine that for those sick people who enjoy rape, many find it
>>exciting and have no problem maintaining an erection.
>>
>>   Michael Stanley (michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu)

>Once again, Lenore mistakeingly quoted the above lines.  They were part of
>a joke between Hiener & Rini which I commented on.  I never said it
>thankyou very much

>Steve

I figured (or remembered previous posts) that it was a joke JUST after
I sent this out.  However, as it hadn't arrived on my reader yet, I
didn't know how to cancel it.  I've since done so.

    Michael Stanley (michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: Challenge to Robert Sheaffer
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 06:16:53 GMT

In article <1992Dec8.194419.29868@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>
>	As to the Axelrod simulation, it is _very_ idealized and
>simplified; it pictures only two participants, and it has a _very_
>simple model of interactions, which may not match the real world in
>some ways.

This is not true. Axelrod's simulation of economic activity in which
some people cheat, and others don't, is based on transactions between
two parties *at one time*. But each individual is envisioned as being 
involved in many different transactions, with many different individuals,
just like the real world. (I trade with A at 2:00. I trade with B at
2:05, and with C at 2:10. B cheated me, A and C did not. I remember this.
The next time, I cooperate with A and C, but cheat B; however, I tell B
that I am now prepared to resume cooperation with him if and only if
he does not cheat me.) This "tit for tat" strategy won hands-down over
EVERY devious and sophisticated strategy that the minds of warped hackers
were able to devise. (Reference: "The Evolution of Economic Cooperation"
by Robert Axelrod. New York: Basic Books, 1984.) This book gives
socialists fits because it pretty much establishes that people get to the
top and stay there through honest exchange, and that anyone who 
tries to "cheat to get ahead" soon ends up cheating himself.

Of course, *every* simulation is too simple when compared to the
Real World!

-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!


     "Mystical explanations are considered deep. The truth is that
      they are not even superficial."

                   - Friedrich Nietzsche    (The Gay Science: 126)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: I'm So Confused
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 16:56:50 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.033321.23119@news.cs.brandeis.edu> st890674@pip.cc.brandeis.edu writes:
>Having a man find you attractive should not entail being sexually harassed.  


>"Nice tits (ass, etc.) is not an example of someone trying to tell you you're
>attractive, but trying to tell you "I have power over you, to demean you
>and humiliate you."  

This absolutely does not follow.

>                    You aren't confused at all: you recognized the difference
>between a sex object and being found attractive by men, and you're right.

Anyone claiming to know the intent and motivations of others from a few
magic politically pre-defined words -is- confused. 

>-jenna


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism