HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Men doing Male Bashing
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: na 
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 20:33:50 GMT

In <1993Jan20.172933.12003@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:

>In article <1993Jan20.045753.27442@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>>In article <C12qAv.26v@ccu.umanitoba.ca> kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts) writes:
>>>White people don't suffer from racism, hence they obvoiusly benefit from
>>>it?  I think that the definition everyone else is using is whether white
>>>people are better off than they would be in the absence of racism.
>>
>>There are different levels.  If I get a better job or apartment than I
>>deserve simply because I'm white, that benefits me.  Does it benefit
>>society?  No.  So, if you're saying that what benefits society
>>benefits whites, then racism affects whites negatively.  But if you
>>say that whites get undeserved jobs, housing, promotions, etc. simply
>>because they're white, that benefits whites (at the expense of
>>non-whites and the equality of society).

>	It still makes no sense. What the hell is "deserve"? How can I
>get a better house or job than I "deserve", and what has it to do with
>racism? Who decides what I deserve?

>	Having others held back is not a benefit to me. That's what you
>seem to be missing.

I agree with you on this. For the sake of argument, if this country
was solidly WASP, I would most likely still be living where I live,
working where I work, etc. Racism has conferred no special benifit
to me.

But, as Ken states, holding other people back has had a negative
effect upon us all. If a nation's greatest natural resource is its
people (something I firmly believe), then not using, or in the
case of human resource, not permitting that resource to reach its
fullest potential is a disservice to the nation and the people
involved.

>						Kayembee

Bob.
From: JBrandt@AAA.Uoregon.EDU (Pegasus)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Boycotts (was Re: Why are many low-income women fat?)
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Date: 27 Jan 1993 21:07:22 GMT
Organization: The Polyhedron Group
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: fp1-dialin-1.uoregon.edu

In article <1993Jan27.051002.15024@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu>,
mkagalen@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (michael kagalenko) wrote:
> 
> In article <C185KJ.uA@news.cso.uiuc.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
> >
Did it occur to any one, that poor women are fatter because of poor
nutritional education.  Foods that are high in fats and starches are
cheeper in cost then those that are not. You buy what you can afford.
  Try this go to the store look at the items that are labled "Lite", "low
or no . .", "Heathly ", "diet . . ." etc. and compare equivalent products
that are not so labled and the ones with the heathy lables the price is
heafter. Olive oil is one example I can think of, another one is "Adams" no
salt peanutbutter is half the price of the peanutbutters labled "low or no
salt" found in the dietetic sections or in the health food stores and the
same quality of peanutbutter.
Why are they fatter, its more cost effective to buy the cheepest food which
are high fat ect.

Pegasus
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:7470 soc.women:22927
From: levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women
Subject: Re: Inherent differences (WAS Re: Feminism is a RELIGION! (eureka!)
Date: 21 Jan 93 16:59:00 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

jjh00@diag.amdahl.com (Joel Hanes) writes:

>(It's also a seldom-reported fact that North American black
> males average significantly higher in blood 
> testosterone than the general male population.)

(More about the differences between the genders.)

>Ethically, the right thing to do is to base
>socialization on the differences between individuals, and to
>provide an environment for each individual that tends to 
>increase their chance of a successful, well-integrated life.

>Adopting this goal as policy, however, will lead to  some
>almost-completely-sex-segregated classes throughout childhood,
>in which boys' greater average physical energy is expended, and
>their greater tendency toward aggression countered.

By this reasoning, should white males be separated from black males?

More seriously, I would like to point out that the differences
between individuals, especially in a pluralistic society (as opposed to
a village society in which all the inhabitants of the village are
cousins) seem much greater than the differences between genders.

I would like to talk about my own experiences in particular. I am a
person of Eastern European Jewish ancestry who grew up and went to
school in a population of Anglos. I was very unhappy, because I was
developmentally very different from the children around me, even
though I *looked* the same; that is, I could do things that the Anglo
children of my age could not, and could not do things that they could. I
felt no less different from the young females than the young males. 

I am not sure if these differences are statistically more frequent in
Eastern European Jews than in Anglos; but I am sure they are in large
part genetic; and I should not have been categorized as being similar
to my schoolmates, just because we were all female.

Yes, I believe in human differences. And, for that reason, I feel it
is just as cruel to thrust humans into rigid categories, without regard
for their *individual* differences, as to assume they are all equal. 
Specifically, I believe that education needs to be tailored, to a
certain extent, to the individual needs of the child. It is barbarous
not to do so.

Lenore Levine
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: grisha@athena.mit.edu (Grigory Golberg)
Subject: What do you want?
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 04:53:27 GMT

I've read a large number of articles in this newsgroup and
I was compelled to ask this question to all feminists out there:

Just what do you want? If you could, please explain it in calm
and logical manner. I'm just curious.


-- 
****************************************************
| Women...can't live with them...pass the beer nuts|
|                                 (Norm Peterson)  |
| I love the women's movement...especially when I  |
|am walking behind it. (Rush Limbaugh)             |
====================================================
| Grigory Golberg, PI        grisha@athena.mit.edu |
****************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Male Men Bashers
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: world 
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:39:11 GMT

In <1993Jan21.022029.20658@adobe.com> kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall) writes:

>In article <93019.214453RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET> RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET writes:
>>From: kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall)
>>
>>- I don't know what his button is, but my button is that somehow, being a
>>- feminist is a dirty word.  I'm quite proud of it and happy to be living
>>
>>    Perhaps this is the problem?  There are many feminists like you who are
>>only interested in fairness for women and have no objection to fairness
>>for men also.  However, there are, as I am sure you are aware, others who
>>sort of don't go for fairness to men.  It is confusing when the same word
>>is used for both kinds of people.  Also, the word `feminist' is itself sort
>>of misleading.  Like one could imagine that the black panthers would
>>Rohit Parikh

>I do actually prefer "humanist", but I guess even that term is loaded for
>some people.

> Janice Kendall    kendall@adobe.com    ...!{decwrl|sun}!adobe!kendall
> 
Well, in looking for labels, I am reminded of an interview with Alfie
Scopp (sp?) on the CBC. Alfie used to play Clarabelle, the clown on
a childrens TV program who never spoke, but used a pair of hand air
horns to communicate. When asked about memorable moments from the
show, he spoke of one time when after the show they were mingling
with the audience. A little boy came up and took hold of the leg of
Alfie's clown suit, and feeling Alfie's leg underneath, turned to
his father and said "Hey Daddy, there's a people inside"

Yeah, I kind of like that - so there's my label - I'm a people. :-)

REB

Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.censorship,news.groups
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: soc.feminism editorial policy
Followup-To: alt.i.want.free.access.now
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
	<1993Jan27.195701.7197@lclark.edu>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 04:28:56 GMT

AD> == Anthony Davis <tonyd@lclark.edu>

 AD> what is needed is somehow to provide free, unlimited access to the
 AD> network...  we can't rely on businesses to allow us to communicate
 AD> with one another...

TANSTAAFL.  There are plenty of public-access sites at various prices from
free to "you just bought your own machine".  Most of them are businesses of
one sort or another, but they make their money by allowing you to
communicate (or are you also advocating that all the long-distance
companies just stop nagging you to pay for your phone calls?).
--
 * Christopher Davis * <ckd@eff.org> * <ckd@kei.com> * [CKD1] * MIME * RIPEM *
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: jay@UUSERV.CC.UTAH.EDU (Jay Deuel)
Subject: Re: Feminist=Equality? Errrr.... Nope.
Organization: University of Utah Computer Center
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 19:00:40 GMT

>>Which means that a man even being invited by a drunk woman to have 
>>sex should think twice. Isn't that common sense? Not _only_ 'cause she
>>can file a rape-complaint, but because she is drunk. 
>
>There is a name for this line of reasoning; it is called "being a gentleman."  
>
>A good example of this is from the movie "The Philadelphia Story," when
>Jimmy Stuart explains to Katharine Hepburn why he didn't sleep with her
>the night before: "You were very attractive.  But you were also the
>worse, or the better, for wine, and there are rules about those things."
>
>But that movie is is from the 40's; we all know that such sentiments are
>extremely outdated and completely worthless, don't we? [sarcasm off]

I remember an episode of Norther Exposure, where the doctor is invited by 
Maggi to have sex (she wasn't drunk, but without sleep for 36 hours).  She 
was asleep by time he enters the bedroom, and does the "gentleman" thing by 
leaving her untouched.  Later on she becomes pissed off after finding out he 
didn't do anything, because she doesn't feel sexy.  THIS IS ONLY A MOVIE, 
but it expresses a male's feeling of "damned if I do & damned if I don't"!
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: galt%peruvian.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Greg Alt)
Subject: Re: Feminism vs. the Sexual Revolution (was: Are special programs sexist/racist? (long)
Date: 21 Jan 93 16:48:49 MST
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: University of Utah Computer Science

In article <1993Jan21.202055.14608@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>Interesting, indeed! This is a consequence of the so-called "sexual revolution,"
>the relaxation of long-standing sexual taboos. The mainstream of contemporary
>feminism stands four-square AGAINST the sexual revolution; Robin Morgan
>has stated this quite explicitly, as have others. You see, now that the
>old sexual taboos are gone, women are now receiving (gasp!) SEXUAL ADVANCES
>from men, which is more or less criminal. There is not the slightest doubt
>that contemporary feminists are mostly working to make sex (actually,
>just hetero sex) pretty much taboo once again, although not in the same way
>as before. (Old taboo: "It's sinful! Licentious! Shameful!" New taboo:
>"It's sexual harrassment and objectification!") Paglia covers the war 
>between feminism and the sexual revolution in her new book "Sex, Art, and
>American Culture."

It is UNWANTED sexual advances that are considered harrassment.  I know it
is hard for many men to understand why unwanted sexual advances might be
bad, but imagine if your male boss patted your butt and greeted you with
"aren't you handsome today" and kept saying that you looked like you had
a delicious penis.  How would that make you feel?

Some gay men might like that sort of attention, but most heterosexual men
would be very upset.

Imagine that you were very lucky to get the job, and you need it desparately
to support your family, and you think that you might get fired if you
object to strongly to the advances.
----
Join the Greg Alt boycott! Put /galt/h :j in your killfile today!
----
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Male Men Bashers
Date: 26 Jan 93 20:49:50 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <C1DE6p.7EC@news.cso.uiuc.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
><RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
>
>>  However, I disagree with the sarcasm because it is true that there are many
>>many ways in which men are treated unjustly in this society.  Anita Hill's
>>concern with talk of pubic hair receives more attention than hundreds of
>>thousands of men who are raped in US prisons every day.
>
>Should either issue *not* receive attention? 

Which have you heard more about? Which have you heard -anything- about
(in them media)?
  
>> There is a clear
>>feeling behind this that men have to take the rough with the smooth and not
>>think of their bodily integrity as something worth protecting, unless they
>>want to be thought of as wimps.  Also we take an under-representation of women
>>in the congress as prima facie evidence of discrimination against women but we
>>do not take the preponderance of men in prisons as prima facie evidence of
>>discrimination against men.  So there is a lot of sexism against men,
>>practiced quite often by men against other men.
>
>True.
>
>>  A second point is that there are many feminists who do in fact detest men.
>
>Not many on the net, or among my personal acquaintances.
>
>>Feminists who do not share these hostile feeelings still do refrain from
>>denouncing this man-hatred.
>
>There are many denouncing this on the net, at least. (Check out a
>discussion on this issue in rec.arts.sf.written; if anyone is interested
>in the exact reference, please email me.)
>
>>  My last point is however that there ARE indeed biological differences
>>between men and women (of a statistical but very significant nature) and
>>a plan for a good society that ignores these differnces is bound not to
>>work and to create at least as many problems as it solves. 
>
>Any plan that ignores individual *human* differences is bound not to
>work.

You mean like plans which -create- equality?
 
>There's an ancient Greek legend of a bandit, Procrustes, who had
>a bed to which he tied unwary travelers. If they were shorter than the
>bed he stretched them on the rack, thus killing them -- and he took
>their money. If they were taller than the bed, he cut their heads off --
>and took their money. (History does not record what he did if they were
>exactly right.) 
>
>Well, if Procrustes had had *two* beds -- one for men, and one for women
>-- would what he did have been any better?

Procrustes could probably find a job in the local government.
 
>Lenore Levine


Rich

payner@netcom.com
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg)
Subject: What a punishment...
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
Distribution: alt
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 23:47:09 GMT

Newsgroups: talk.rape, alt.feminism
Subject: What a punishment...
Distribution: talk.rape
--text follows this line--
I just heard that a bill was introduced in the New Mexico legislature
to have a new penalty for rape.  If a man is convicted of rape, he
would have the choice of being castrated... or being forced to leave
the state.  Is being forced to leave New Mexico really a legitimate
punishment for a crime this serious...

(note: For those who read talk.rape, I apologise for posting this
twice.  But it seemed relevant to both newsgroups and I can figure out
how to crosspost...)

-David "ZZYZX" Steinberg- King of the ellipses
       (dsteinbe@emmy.nmsu.edu)
**********************************************************************
*"Swim with the cactus and      *"I can't believe I'm a junior and a *
* Float with the stone.         * film major, when all I really      *
* I try to convey what          * wanted in this life was to marry a *
* She's trying to condone."     * lobsterman and cook fish."         *
* -Phish                        * -a letter from Christie Searing    *
**********************************************************************
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Verbs and gender connotations
Date: 26 Jan 93 16:17:20 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1993Jan26.044638.23376@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>In article <1993Jan24.043603.6345@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan22.084035.25495@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>  [deleted] 
>
>>>  Because society deems it worse for a woman to fuck a man who's drunk
>>>  than for a man to be fucked while he is himself drunk.
>>
>>Do you not mean NEW YORK, and so far, only New York?
>
>I can't parse the New York reference. I was, rather ad absurdium, 
>pointing out that the impersonal pronoun "one" can be used in place
>of "man" or "woman"...or to indicate "person, who could be a man
>or a woman".

I parsed your use of the words "Because society deems", and was stating
that my observations disagree with this. One poster mentioned an actual
law of this type on the books in NY.

I also think you are overgeneralizing.
 
>Of course, "one" can also be used for inanimate objects, but in
>the context, I didn't think that's what Michal meant.

It has nothing to do with what I meant either. Communication is no
accident, one must constantly work at it. <sigh>
 
>Thus, my comment was more on syntax than semantics.

My comment was on content.
 
>>>I am also, btw, committed to the proposition that most of the cultural
>>>gender-role differences are CULTURAL and not innate. Men & women ain't
>>>all that different, folks. And, most importantly,
>>
>>This sound to me like you have closed your mind, and it would not 
>>matter if tomorrow valid evidence were presented that there were innate
>>differences.
>
>Actually, Rich, I know there are differences. It just seems to me
>that when a woman (say, me) has demonstrated that she is capable 
>of doing <X>, then stating that a woman "can't" do <X> is nonsense.
>And, when a man has demonstrated that he is capable of doing <Y>,
>then stating that a man "can't" do <Y> is also nonsense.

Since this has never been an issue that I have pressed, I see no point
on commenting. On the other hand, you have rejected the information I
have posted on developmental and brain differences between men and
women. It still seems that you have closed your mind on the issue. All
differences are "CULTURAL and not innate", right?
 
>>>         how any individual acts is not necessarily dictated 
>>>         by their gender.
>>
>>Gender is a language construct, so I disagree. Or perhaps you are reffering
>>to their sex?
>
>One definition of gender is as a language construct, another is sex [at
>least in Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary].  

Please post it. But even given that, the word would be ambiguous. Someone
else posted the above, but were unable to defend it. 
 
>That said, why did I use "gender" instead of "sex"?  Hmmm. Good question.

It is clear and unambiguous.
 
>-jen

CYA...


Rich

payner@netcom.com
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: Feminist=Equality? Errrr.... Nope.
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 20:57:06 GMT
Organization: MCSNet, Chicago, IL

In article <1jho7oINN96d@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>
>>In article <1jan8aINNetd@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>
>>And I've done some stupid things while drunk.
>
>>However, I WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR MY ACTIONS WHILE DRUNK.
>
>>In fact, society holds me responsible for my actions while drunk, including
>>what I consent to.  Why is it different for women in bed?
>
>Because society deems it worse to fuck someone who's drunk than to be
>fucked while one is oneself drunk.

Therefore, next time I'm drunk and some woman sleeps with me I should change
my mind and cry "rape" the next morning, right?

--
Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900]

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: pi101@cus.cam.ac.uk (P.M. Inman)
Subject: Re: Feminist=Equality? Errrr.... Nope.
Organization: U of Cambridge, England
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 14:45:33 GMT

In article <1jk3vrINNob7@lily.csv.warwick.ac.uk>, maufd@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Mr J S Graley) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan19.211957.23038@llyene.jpl.nasa.gov> julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas) writes:
|> |In article <1jhp09INNnv9@lily.csv.warwick.ac.uk> maufd@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Mr J S Graley) writes:
|> |>
|> |>You should be criticising the women who make false claims of rape, not
|> |>the jucicial system which is given the probem of having to decide when a
|> |>rape accusation is genuine by these women.
|> |
|> |I criticize them just like I criticize people who claim their
|> |wallet was stolen when it wasn't.  But it *is* up to the
|> |judical system to determine who is or isn't guilty.  And the
|> |judical system *is* partly responsible if it doesn't prosecute 
|> |those who file false claims for personal gain.
|> |
|> |>You have (at least) two options when deciding your personal view on this
|> |>matter, if you wish to provide protection against being raped yourself.
|> |
|> |These aren't really ways of protecting yourself against rape.  They are
|> |instead ways how *some* NOT all people may view rape cases.
|> |
|> |>
|> |>(1) Claim that cries of rape should always be believed, true or false.
|> |>
|> |>(2) Try to prevent false cries of rape, making true ones more believable. 
|> |
|> |How about
|> |(3) Treat all cases individually.  Follow 'innocent until proven
|> |guilty'.  Don't assume all rape accusations are all false or
|> |all true.  Prosecute *anyone* making false claims of any sort
|> |for personal gain.
|> 
|> I have taken your (3) as a premise. Thus its introduction into the list
|> is pointless.
|> 
|> We can never 'Prove' a rape has occured. We can simply provide good evidence
|> that it has.
|> 
|> DO YOU OR DO YOU NOT agree that fewer false accusations of rape will make
|> the process of demonstrating a true one easier?
|> 
|> This is a really important question, because the attitude you have shown in 
|> your posting does not seem to support this.
|> 
|> |Julie
|> |DISCLAIMER:  All opinions here belong to my cat and no one else
|> 
|> ~THE GREAT NAME
|> -- 
|>     Don't worry,
|>      Its like in the comic books...
|>       ITS NOT REAL!

Phew!  I'm thinking of setting up as an employment consultant, advising clients
on the suitability of job applicants, on the basis of their performance on a
selection of contraversial newsgroups.  

-- 
Philip Inman.............................e-mail: pi101@cus.cam.ac.uk
Open Systems Development Programme........JANET: pi101@uk.ac.cam.cus
Cambridge University Computer Laboratory....tel: [+44 (int); 0 (UK)] 223-335442
Cambridge, England CB2 3QG..................fax: [+44 (int); 0 (UK)] 223-334679
Newsgroups: alt.feminism