HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine)
Subject: Re: Sophie Germain - Gender Differences
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 15:48:17 GMT

<RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:

>-From: levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine)
>-
>-For these reasons, I am in favor of institutions like Mills College's
>-summer research program in mathematics, for talented female
>-undergraduates. I just wish more such programs were available, and
>-available to other individuals of nonstandard backgrounds.

>    I have said absolutely nothing to indicate that I am not in favour
>of such programs.  If anyone who has read my postings thinks that, then they
>have not read me right at all.

>Rohit Parikh

Then we do not seem to disagree very much, about anything. I have a
feeling you misunderstood the positions of feminists on these issues.

Let me remark, in conclusion, that my mother once taught an algebra
class to underprivileged African-American women, who worked for
the telephone company. She said the variation of ability in these
individuals was enormous (although they were all very motivated). Some,
basically, did not have mathematical talent. But there were others
-- even in a class of 30 -- who had considerably more talent. There was
no one in the class who, in her opinion, should have thought about
becoming a research mathemtician (but such individuals are very
rare). But there was more than one who, with the proper training,
could have become, say, an engineer or a programmer...

If there are inherent differences of abilities, then it is even
more cruel to consign talented people, to menial and inappropriate work.

Lenore Levine
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Football: Robert Sheaffer's Central Metaphor?
Organization: LLNL
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 21:45:09 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.193705.12869@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.232603.3881@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
: 
: 	I have finally come across what seems to be the dominating
: metaphor in Robert Sheaffer's thoughts on relations between the sexes.
: I think that he continually makes analogies to pro football (American
>
>Gawrsh, I *never* thotuv that! Maybe I should sit down and watch a
>football game sometime, so I can better understand Loren's deep
>insight here. I attended a few football games when I was in
>high school, and I think I even went to one in college once, but not
>since then. I don't watch the games on TV, either; it's wonderful how uncrowded
>the roads, shopping malls, etc. are when the 49ers are playing, and
>I'd hate to pass up such a fine opportunity to get out and do things.
>And Superbowl Sunday is the very best day to go visit a normally-crowded 
>tourist attraction.

	C'mon, I was just trying to find out what is going on in your
mind. I guessed I goofed rather miserably, since you seem to rejoice
at the absence of football-goers from the roads.

	For my part, game and concert-goers are no problem for me when
I ride BART; I sometimes share a train with large numbers of people
going to the Oakland Coliseum.

: 	Women in football? Always as cheerleaders, who are usually
: scantily clad sex objects. They are not really important to the game,
: it must be said. I personally have nothing against exhibitionism in
: principle, just against exploitation.
>
>Yes, a well-paid female actress (for that is what these are), having
>an exciting, fast-paced life and undoubtedly dozens of highly attractive
>suitors, is *exploited* something fierce. We've got to make them stop
>doing this, for their own good. Frankly, I think they should
>all be forced to wear the chador (sp?), like the cheerleaders at
>Teheran State U.

	Have you ever been a cheerleader? Or do you get your ideas
from reading Sports Illustrated and Playboy special issues on them?

>Yes, feminism and prudery, cut from the same cloth.

	The Dworkinite feminists, yes, but you haven't heard of a
whole group of "pro-sex" feminists, such as Susie Bright. You should
read some of her writings sometime.

	And haven't you ever heard of Fundie prudery?

: 	Those concerned about sexism will also find football
: objectionable, though that might be corrected by setting up all-female
: football leagues.
>
>And even if such were done, would anybody actually *pay money* to watch
>the games? The audience wants the thrill of macho action, so unless you
>can get some of your Diesel Dyke friends from Berkeley to turn pro,
>the fans would be laughing themselves silly at the dainty way the
>game was being played.

	"Dainty"? There you go again, with your silly stereotypes.
-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:6402 soc.men:21660 soc.women:21814
From: x73rl@ll.mit.edu ( Rick LaFave)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Date: 22 Dec 92 15:55:36 GMT
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory

So lets see....
  Since Feminism is about womens issues, not mens issues, feminists 
concentrate on womens lives/issues and are indifferent (at best) to mens
lives/issues.   Nobody bats an eye...  No big surprise here...
  Men who discuss mens issues without the footnote 'women have it much 
worse', or who interject that males also have a perspective on a particular
problem that women haven't considered (see para 1), are insensitive to 
womens issues/needs/whatever and are belittleing womens lives.
  I love the way this works, its just great!
  BTW who did we say is being insensitive?
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Subject: Re: Women DOCTORS
Date: 29 Dec 92 08:31:39 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <oneil.725473435@cwis> oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil) writes:
><MIWHC@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
>
>>     I am looking for any sort of data/statistics on how patients feel about
>>women doctors....
>
>I have no data or statistics for you.  Just my own impressions.
>
>Usually, I don't care what gender my doctor is, as long as he or she is 
>competent and provides quality care.  But I have found, for certain exams,
>you know, the dreaded "pelvic" examination, I'd prefer to see a female 
>physicians' assistant.  The only decent and gentle examination I have ever
>gotten has been from a female P.A.  For some reason, male gynecologists
>are not gentle and don't think that they have to be.

I've had three pelvic exams; once by a woman internist, the other two
by a woman registered nurse practitioner. I [felt like a sexist pig and]
specifically requested an appointment with one of the women when I 
was scheduling the first one, on the basis that at least the person
_doing_ the exam would know what it was like to _experience_ one.  
(Actually, a male doctor had suggested that I might be more comfortable
with a woman doing the exam, at least for the first time.)  

At any rate, Maryann handled my tenseness fine, started off with a
small warmed-up speculum (not small enough, darn it!), had potholders
on the stirrups for comfort, and gave me an extra-long appointment.

Other than that, I've had both doctors who happened to be male and
doctors who happened to be female, and noticed no gender-related
differences between them.

Good luck finding statistics!

-jen

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Subject: Re: The BEM Test
Date: 29 Dec 92 19:31:54 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <BzzoAJ.Kwo@news.cso.uiuc.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
>psychological test called the Bem Sex Role Inventory. This test lists
>sixty adjectives that refer to human beings, some "masculine," some
>"feminine," and some neutral (but you don't know which are which until
>you complete the test). You are asked how well these adjectives describe
>you; and whether you assign yourself a preponderance of masculine or
>feminine adjectives, determines your "sex type."

Well, I assigned myself 12 feminine and 12 masculine. What does *that* 
mean?  ;>

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

Seems rather rooted in sex-roles to me; would probably measure which
gender-role someone is suited for.

-jen

>Lenore Levine


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: Feminism's Lesbian Leaders (was: Why are there only men on)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 19:07:31 GMT

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

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

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

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

And so is NOW's Patricia Ireland, who's living in a lesbian relationship,
nonetheless. And as the other poster noted, Morgan's involvement with
men is *at most* through bisexuality, although she seems to be tending
primarily toward lesbianism.

And this gaggle of lesbians is presuming to instruct heterosexual,
family-oriented women on how to deal with men! That's like turning to 
a KKK manual for advice on how to deal with Blacks and Jews.
 
>Check yer facts Bob.  It's no good spreading falsehoods.
>
Et tu, Rini.


-- 
  
        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,soc.men,soc.women
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:27:03 GMT

rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes:

>For every woman that is the victim of violence there are three men that
>are the victims of violence.  Since "we" see a special need for action
>against violence against women, but not against men, the natural conclusion
>is that "we" feel that violence against a woman is more than three times
>as serious as violence against a man.
>
>Do you not see that this sort of viewpoint is perceived as amounting to
>saying, "Women are more important, more human than men.  Their hurts matter
>more.  Women are entitled; men are not."

So if I give money to an aid organization for Estonia, and don't write
a check of comparable magnitude to Care's program in Somalia, do you
think I'm implying that I don't give two hoots about starving Africans?
If I decide to tutor adults who can't read, do you think I'm implying
that all the other people in the world who can benefit from tutoring
are simply "worth less" to me than illiterate adults?  If I lobby for
air bags to be installed in all cars, does that imply that I'm against
seat belts and secretly working for their demise?  

Hmm.  I have an idea.  If I think it is important to tutor illiterate 
adults, I can do that.  If you think it is more important to spend your 
time tutoring illiterate teenagers, you can do that.  And if someone 
else thinks it is even *more* important to tutor kids before they go 
to school, *they* can do *that*.   Now as I see it, we're all doing
Good Things.  Why do we have to argue about who really needs the 
tutoring most?

rini
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:6483 soc.men:21745 soc.women:21870
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Date: 23 Dec 92 17:02:41 GMT
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

holzman@d0gslb.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman) writes:
>mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:

>> So if I give money to an aid organization for Estonia, and don't write
>> a check of comparable magnitude to Care's program in Somalia, do you
>> think I'm implying that I don't give two hoots about starving Africans?
>
>No, but if you bring up Estonia every time someone mentions starving Africans
>as if we should drop everything and pay attention to Estonia, you do give the
>impression that you don't give two hoots about starving Africans.

This is a good point.  I will have to remember it next time I see the
"Violence against women???  What about the much more serious problem of
violence against MEN!!" objection raised.  

I believe you are right to say that the sword cuts both ways.

>> Hmm.  I have an idea.  If I think it is important to tutor illiterate 
>> adults, I can do that.  If you think it is more important to spend your 
>> time tutoring illiterate teenagers, you can do that.  And if someone 
>> else thinks it is even *more* important to tutor kids before they go 
>> to school, *they* can do *that*.   Now as I see it, we're all doing
>> Good Things.  Why do we have to argue about who really needs the 
>> tutoring most?
>
>I'd love to not to have to argue about it.  So how come whenever I bring up
>tutoring illiterate teenagers, someone else asks how I can spend my time and
>energy on that with all these illiterate adults running around.

Halleluiah brother.  I'm with you all the way.

rini
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 01:09:14 GMT
X-Posted-From: d0gslb.fnal.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <168C1CB92.SURGDM@mizzou1.missouri.edu>, Diane writes:
> women are victims, and primarily victims of men. If there is a problem with
> male violence, maybe you can start doing something about it instead of just
> running your mouth about how terrible it is. 

Hence the men's movement, Diane, which is getting run down by feminists left
and right for daring to suggest that maybe there's something wrong with how
this society treats men?  See where Dave might get a little pissed?

> You seem to be angry that women
> would dare to usurp whatever fear you claim to be living with. Deal with it.
> We have dealt with it, are dealing with it, and we're sick of it. You're
> going to have to get your sympathy from somewhere else.
>  
> Diane
> If you're not part of the cure, you're part of the problem. [ ]

Judging by the last half of the message, we may safely conclude that you are
part of the proble, then. :-(

-- 
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.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: x73rl@ll.mit.edu ( Rick LaFave)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Back Again To (Un)Father - NOT!
Date: 30 Dec 92 15:10:08 GMT
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory

Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
>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?
>

Under current laws an emphatic YES.  And on to the down side...
 1) Just another motivator for the mom to exercise her choices and either 
abort early or put the child up for adoption, in either event avoiding 
paying any money at all.  Of course the man is deprived of his child, but 
oh well, thats the breaks ya'know. 
 2) If you believe that women are underpaid and/or underemployed (WRT men), 
then odds are the actual $$ amout that she would pay him is less than 
the actual $$ he would pay her, if she had instead exercised her choice 
to raise the child herself, and sought support from him.  (Support is 
generally a specific fraction of gross income).
From: holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Daniel's interesting obsession with me
Date: 29 Dec 92 00:52:41 GMT
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: fnalno.fnal.gov

In article <MUFFY.92Dec23161353@remarque.berkeley.edu>, 
muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>Please quote me EVER trying to get feminists OR ANYONE ELSE to stop doing
>>anything about violence against women.
> 
> Sure, right here:
> 
>>Why is it that every time someone brings up violence against men, here or
>>elsewhere, some feminists start shouting about violence against women, and how
>>dare we focus on men's problems?

Absent from this quote is any statement that feminists shouldn't work on
violence against women.  Can you tell the difference between "feminists
shouldn't work on violence against women" (which I do not believe), and
"feminists should not insist that we all only work on violence against women?"
(which is what I am saying above.)  If you can't, there's really no point to
further dialogue.

--
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.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine)
Subject: Boycotts (was Re: Why are many low-income women fat?)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 21:34:25 GMT

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

>In article <Bzq9q5.78w@news.cso.uiuc.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
>>Some of these people are actively dating, but most of them are over 30.
>>You're right, that people's tastes, both culinary and sensual, do
>>change with age.

>	Agreed.

>>Nowadays, I prefer sushi to sweets. I also find character plays a
>>larger role in physical attraction, than it did when I was young.  

>	A lot of people pay this lip service, because
>	it's the in thing to do (and, for men, the only
>	safe thing to do around women).  Still, I'll take
>	it at face value.

I don't think you understand, how different the tastes of us jaded 
middle-aged sensualists can be! I don't think I would have believed at 
eight, how much I love sea urchin sushi now.

>>>	Not the type of boycott I'm referring to.  The type of boycott
>>>	I'm referring to (feminists marching outsode the building spreading
>>>	subversive "evidence" of sexism) is sad and immoral--it's right
>>>	up there with Operation Rescue and Lambs of Christ in terms
>>>	of sleaze.

>>If you want me to comment on the *goals* of a *specific* boycott,
>>you have to describe them.

>	Take a look at the feminist actions against a that radio 
>	station in Canada for playing a beatles song--boy, those
>	people would make Terry Randall proud.
                          ^^^^^ ^^^^^^^
                          Randall Terry

I am not particularly enthused about the goals of the above boycott.

However, I have planned a boycott myself, which I would like to
see implemented at some future time (and which I plan eventually,
to discuss with the appropriate organizations). 

There are some Silicon Valley companies which have a policy of
not hiring large people. I would like to create a database
of companies which have this policy (using appropriate safeguards for
accuracy -- which I am *not* an expert on, and would have to discuss
with those who are).  

I would then like to make this database available to those who are
concerned about the rights of large people, and wish to make buying
decisions based on this concern. I suspect that just being informed
that they *are* on such a list, and that it is avaiable to the
public, may be enough to make some companies significantly modify
their policies.

I am curious what you think about this boycott idea.

Lenore Levine
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell)
Subject: Re: White Feather Campaign
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 15:47:48 GMT


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: DPIROT@vm.ucs.UAlberta.CA
Subject: The White Feather Campaign

DPIROT@vm.ucs.UAlberta.CA writes:

Several 'womens groups' have been reported in the media as
expressing outrage at the media reports of systematized rape camps
in Bosnia, and are demanding military intervention in Bosnia to
bring and end to the practice.
As has already been pointed out in several postings, the reports
are similar to the stories that were circulated in 1914, during the
German invasion of Belgium about nuns being raped and babies
bayonetted by 'the Boche', that were used to stir up war sentiment
and encourage young men to volunteer for military service, stories
that were later found to be fictitious.

	Lets not forget the one about about Iraqui soilders
	pulling infants from incubators.
	
It is likely, judging from the lack of confirming evidence and from
the opinions of aid workers in Bosnia that the reports are greatly
exaggerated, that the stories have been made up in order to stir up
sympathy for a Balkan war. 

	As I posted before, Im undecided.  However, assuming these
	reports were true would it wouldnt justify destroying tens
	of thousands more lives, environments, resources etc.  



Recently the Bosnian government accused
General Lewis MacKenzie, the Canadian former commander of the UN
peace keeping forces, of raping and killing four Bosnian girls.

	Jesus Christ!  Thanks, I didnt know this one.


However, even if there were some truth to the allegations, what
seems to be happening is that the feminists are prepared to
sacrifice the lives of young American men in order to protect the
virtue of women. 

	I dont know if they look at it that way though that might
	be the end result.  They may simply be outraged at the
	victimization and want it to stop.  


This seems to me to be a major step backward.
What will we see next - feminists in the street handing out white
feathers to young men to shame them into going to war to defend
womankind from the Boche?

	I think that is stretching it far.  Good points otherwise.



Don't fall for it, guys.

	 No need to worry.


Steve R











Newsgroups: alt.feminism