HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: The Leader Desslok School of Diplomacy
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 18:51:48 EST
From: Mark 'Mark' Sachs <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: PC MANIFESTO (?)
 <1992Dec10.222427.24183@midway.uchicago.edu> <92346.055747A54SI@CUNYVM.BITNET>

In article <92346.055747A54SI@CUNYVM.BITNET>, <A54SI@CUNYVM.BITNET> says:

>I'd figured in some version of the Manifesto they would have gotten rid of
> the bug that implied pro-Gulf War is PC.

That's not a bug, it's a feature. Being anti-Gulf War is very, very, very
politically incorrect. Anyone who protested the Gulf War was made fun of
and attacked by the conservative media, and according to everyone in power
were not True Americans.

Incidentally, the PC manifesto does miss the biggest one of all:

IT'S POLITICALLY CORRECT TO BE POLITICALLY INCORRECT.

I mean, think about it! Conservatives of course HAVE to be politically
incorrect or they are ostricized (sp?) by their leadership and their heroes
(ie, Rush.) If you don't make a flap and a fuss in response to someone being
attacked for racism or sexism, then you're not a True Conservative; it's
politically correct to defend racism and sexism to the death. And liberals,
well, they're forced to precede everything they say with "I hate those PC
wackos just as much as you do" or else they're tarred with the label PC.

Conservative political correctness: the trend of the '90s.

"Thank you, Dr. Science."

[Your blood pressure just went up.]        Mark Sachs IS: mbs110@psuvm.psu.edu
DISCLAIMER: If PSU knew I had opinions they'd probably try to charge me for it.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: htilney@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Gays in the military
Organization: Clark University
Date: 17 DEC 92 02:25:44 GMT

In a previous article, davew@willow03.cray.com (Dave Wagner) wrote:
>In article <jhansen.724536693@convex.convex.com>, jhansen@convex.com (James Hansen) writes:
>> In <BzC3MC.M5E@ais.org> tim@ais.org (Tim Tyler) writes:
>> > 
>> >   Of course everyone knows there are already gays in the military, but the
>> >difference is that they're 'locked in the closet' & as such their discretion
>> >would not result in the straight soldiers feeling queasy in the common
>> >showers.
>> 
>> This "queasiness" you refer to has more to do with the straight man's
>> insecurities and the (incorrect) assumption that all gay men can't
>> anymore control their sexual urges than a male dog after a bitch in
>> heat.
>> 
>But isn't that same (incorrect) assumption driving the seperate facilities
>for men/women?  Maybe not.  I just have trouble rationalizing the two.  If
>it's behavior that should be judged (like unwanted sexual advances) can't
>this be the same with men vs. women?  Actually, I'd like to hear some views
>of women?  Would you have more/less/the same comfort level showering with
>openly gay women as (straight) men.  Why?  But what if the men were happily
>married and made no sexual advances?  Shouldn't they be judged on behavior?

I suppose we could expand this conversation to involve gender relation-
ships in general, but my original question was more to the following:
have the armed forces been a "boys club" for so long that they (to an 
extent) promote sexist and homophobic attitudes? 

This point about fear of showering is in so many words the same statement
that some military leaders have made, but IMO it hardly seems worthy as
the foundation of a rational argument. Maybe that answers my question.

-		
Bart "Webb" Tilney	
Email: htilney@vax.clarku.edu
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: Gays in the military
Date: 16 Dec 92 21:09:13 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <jhansen.724536693@convex.convex.com> jhansen@convex.com (James Hansen) writes:
>In <BzC3MC.M5E@ais.org> tim@ais.org (Tim Tyler) writes:
>
>> The same holds true for gay males in men's locker rooms.  They're going to
>>'look,' & the other men have the right to be concerned about this.
>> 
>>   Of course everyone knows there are already gays in the military, but the
>>difference is that they're 'locked in the closet' & as such their discretion
>>would not result in the straight soldiers feeling queasy in the common
>>showers.
>
>We are also in public showers.  Those who know I am gay don't seem too
>bothered by my presence.
>
>This "queasiness" you refer to has more to do with the straight man's
>insecurities and the (incorrect) assumption that all gay men can't
>anymore control their sexual urges than a male dog after a bitch in
>heat.

I assume that you also feel that women require separate facilities for the 
same stupid reasons that you foster upon heterosexual men?

Ted


-- 
So the Maples formed a union, and demanded equal rights, "The Oaks are just 
too greedy.  We will make them give us light!"  Now there's no more Oak 
oppression, for they passed a noble law.  And the trees are all kept equal, 
by hatchet, axe and saw.     -  Rush, The Trees
From: jpsb@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov (Jim Shirreffs)
Subject: Re: women marines/in military
Organization: JJ Software
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 23:18:03 GMT

|>
|>Why can women (who also work on machinery) wear their hair longer?
|>
|>Also, are higher-ranking personnel allowed to wear their hair longer?
|>Seems like the skinhead look is mostly among the grunts.

|I think it's just one of those weird things that the military does
|because that's the way the military does it (translation:  no real
|reason).

Actually there is a reason: The military tries to suppress the individual
among it's members. Particully at lower ranks, these men/women have
to function as a team. Individuality (sp) gets in the way of the "team" 
concept. Why doesn't the military do the same with females? Your guess 
is as good as mine.

jim shirreffs

i speak for myself and only myself

Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: women marines/in military
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 01:06:49 GMT

In article <merlyn.724047346@digibd> merlyn@digibd.digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes:
>hillyard@msc.cornell.edu writes:
>>General cleanliness.  You don't want people mucking around in the trenches
>>with long hair.  (May help with lice and such also.)
>
>Possibly, but I don't see the military shaving off pubic hair.
>
>>Is generally more functional.  While repairing the tank/helicopter/etc you
>>don't have to worry about hair getting caught in the gearing and dragging
>>you with it.
>
>Why can women (who also work on machinery) wear their hair longer?
>
>Also, are higher-ranking personnel allowed to wear their hair longer?
>Seems like the skinhead look is mostly among the grunts.

I think it's just one of those weird things that the military does
because that's the way the military does it (translation:  no real
reason).

For example, the Army allows female military personnel in uniform to
carry umbrellas, while the men can't.  The only thing I can figure out
is that a man carrying an umbrella doesn't look as macho as one just
being rained on.  Since women can't be macho (;)), they're allowed to
carry umbrellas.

I seem to remember a rule about men in uniform not being able to carry
infants, but I can't swear to it.
From: wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Patrick Chester)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: women marines/in military
Date: 14 Dec 92 23:18:47 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

In article <merlyn.724047346@digibd> merlyn@digibd.digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes:
]hillyard@msc.cornell.edu writes:
][hair length]
]>> Still haven't heard any *reasons* as such.
]
]>General cleanliness.  You don't want people mucking around in the trenches
]>with long hair.  (May help with lice and such also.)
]
]Possibly, but I don't see the military shaving off pubic hair.

Cheap. But I'll try to answer it. Maybe because pubic hair isn't exposed
quite as much as other concentrations of hair?
 
]>Is generally more functional.  While repairing the tank/helicopter/etc you
]>don't have to worry about hair getting caught in the gearing and dragging
]>you with it.
]
]Why can women (who also work on machinery) wear their hair longer?

Women can have longer hair. However, they must pin it up while in uniform.
 
]Also, are higher-ranking personnel allowed to wear their hair longer?
]Seems like the skinhead look is mostly among the grunts.

Which services are you specifically refering to? The Marines seem to be all
shaven regardless of rank. At least all the ones I've seen have and these 
were officers.
 
]---
]Merlyn LeRoy


-- 
Patrick Chester            |----------------------------------------------------
wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu |"The earth is too fragile a basket in which to keep
Politically Incorrect      |  all your eggs." Robert A. Heinlein
Future Lunar Colonist      |"The meek can *have* the Earth. The rest of us are 
#^%$!! Militarist          |  going to the stars." Robert A. Heinlein
(Of the Sun Tzu mentality) |----------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: jhansen@convex.com (James Hansen)
Subject: Re: Gays in the military
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 20:11:33 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <BzC3MC.M5E@ais.org> tim@ais.org (Tim Tyler) writes:

> The same holds true for gay males in men's locker rooms.  They're going to
>'look,' & the other men have the right to be concerned about this.
> 
>   Of course everyone knows there are already gays in the military, but the
>difference is that they're 'locked in the closet' & as such their discretion
>would not result in the straight soldiers feeling queasy in the common
>showers.

We are also in public showers.  Those who know I am gay don't seem too
bothered by my presence.

This "queasiness" you refer to has more to do with the straight man's
insecurities and the (incorrect) assumption that all gay men can't
anymore control their sexual urges than a male dog after a bitch in
heat.

--
James B. Hansen                                  {sun,uunet}!convex!jhansen
CONVEX Computer Corporation                              jhansen@convex.com
3000 Waterview Parkway, P. O. Box 833851
Richardson, TX 75083-3851                              Phone: (214)497-4802
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: wbg@mtek.com (W. Brewster Gillett)
Subject: Re: ""Politically correct""
Reply-To: brew@mtek.com
Organization: MTEK International, Inc.
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 18:31:34 GMT

htilney@vax.clarku.edu writes:

>Was this term intended to be self-contradicting?

>I suppose "politically correct" was meant to refer to a more limited
>number of ideas (environment, etc.).

>By the way, I'm new to this newsgroup, and I hope rambling is acceptable.

>Bart

"Politically Correct", IMO, can be subsumed under the general mindset of:

"I'm passionately in favor of free speech for all, unless, of course, the
particular speech isn't well aligned with my worldview; or has the
potentially dangerous property of changing someone's views to something
other than full agreement with mine, or nibbles away at my or my friends'
favorite orthodoxies, whatever those may be."

Political correctness behaviours, as generally found on American campuses
today, strike me as one of the more profoundly authoritarian, nay, perhaps
even totalitarian, manifestations of power-seeking in an increasingly
intolerant atmosphere. Though principally practiced by the left in today's
USA, these actions are not unknown to the right.

Can you say, "You can't have it both ways, Baby!" ?

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
brew@mtek.com
MTEK International, Inc.             Throughput Technology Corp.
Throughput!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: jimbo@leland.Stanford.EDU (Godfather of Soul)
Subject: Re: Rush
Organization: NewsRUs
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 92 09:08:50 GMT

In article <19410002@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com> tonyz@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Tony Zugates) writes:
>I dont remember the exact figures, but perhaps 75% (please anyone
>correct me) of the American public reads and comprehends at the 
>6th or 7th grade level (thanks to our educational system). This
>figure may be off because my source is about 10 years old.  
>
>However, it may help explain the Rush phenomenon.  Back when 
>Archie Bunker was on TV, the producers were shocked when they 
>found out that a large portion of the viewing audience was 
>actually identifying with and cheering on Archie...who was the
>the butt of the joke !!!!!  go figure that! but remember the
>previous statement...  Well, Archie isnt on TV any more and these
>same people who identified with Archie didn't go anywhere..they are
>still drinking beer, slapping around the wife, going to Monster Truck
>shows and avoiding the Evening News at all costs... 

To compare those who partially agree with Rush and those who think
Archie Bunker is a folk hero is to miss the point entirely.

>Therefore, Rush...he stepped in and took over...  I really envy
>the guy..he is making millions off these people.

Since you envy him can one assume you believe that making
money is the root of success?  I listen to him because he
effectively challenges the liberal status quo and respect (some
of) his opinions.  His income is really of no consequence.

>I will say one thing, I dont subscribe to his outrageous statements
>and philosophy but he's a good businessman....like Oral Roberts
>and Jimmy & Tammy ad nauseum...

See above comment.

James



-- 
James W. Brown		-  I dream of the day when conservatives learn   	-
			-  the difference between a sin and a crime and  	-
			-  liberals learn the difference between a       	-
			-  virtue and a requirement.      --William A. Niskanen	-
From: bud@mtek.com (Bud Hovell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: women marines/in military
Date: 14 Dec 92 04:53:52 GMT
Reply-To: bud@mtek.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: MTEK International, Inc.

farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:

>Well, you show me the logic behind rules which say that a female Army
>officer can carry an umbrella and a male Army officer can't and I'll
>say it isn't a mindless custom that has nothing to do with logic.

I can only assume you aren't married, or you wouldn't be leading so
bravely with the word "logic" in association with any issue in this
society that has to do with differential expectations regarding the
behavior of the two officially-recognized sexes. :-)

Women in the military -- contrary to your apparent assumptions -- do
not (and probably never will) labor under all the same requirements
as do men -- and not just with regard to umbrellas.

One of these differences lies in the fact that women are allowed to
wear their hair long, just so it is gathered above the collar while
in uniform. This may be allowed owing to a concern (probably irrational,
by your lights) that civilians might be excessively startled if en-
countering a woman sporting the military crew cut typically seen
only on men. And many such members would resent having their gender
subordinated to that excessive degree.

So why might women (only) be allowed to carry umbrellas? Well, I
can speculate:

I am under the impression that many women have their hair "permed"
to hold it to a preferred shape. And that rain makes such hair go
*INSTANTLY KINKY*. An umbrella affords far greater protection against
raindrops than will any uniform headgear.

Did female military members ask for -- and get -- dispensation to
carry umbrellas to diminish this problem that is more or less solitary
to their gender? Is that the "logic" you find so elusive? I don't know.
I don't even know for sure that the regulation exists, or -- if it does
-- whether you have accurately represented its specific provisions or
context.

But I do get that you have alot more energy on these kinds of "problems"
than do most people actually in the military. Perhaps this just reflects
a difference in their daily diet. Or an outlook tempered by the certain
knowledge they someday could be repeatedly shot at by really serious
people.
-- 
________________________________________________________________
bud@mtek.com ... uunet!m2xenix!mtek!bud ... bud@rigel.cs.pdx.edu
MTEK International, Inc.             Throughput Technology Corp.
Walk the talk.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: hayesstw@risc1.unisa.ac.za (Steve Hayes)
Subject: Re: ""Politically correct""
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 08:21:59 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of South Africa

In article <1992Dec16.183134.28927@mtek.com> wbg@mtek.com (W. Brewster Gillett) writes:

>"Politically Correct", IMO, can be subsumed under the general mindset of:
>
>"I'm passionately in favor of free speech for all, unless, of course, the
>particular speech isn't well aligned with my worldview; or has the
>potentially dangerous property of changing someone's views to something
>other than full agreement with mine, or nibbles away at my or my friends'
>favorite orthodoxies, whatever those may be."
>
>Political correctness behaviours, as generally found on American campuses
>today, strike me as one of the more profoundly authoritarian, nay, perhaps
>even totalitarian, manifestations of power-seeking in an increasingly
>intolerant atmosphere. Though principally practiced by the left in today's
>USA, these actions are not unknown to the right.
>
>Can you say, "You can't have it both ways, Baby!" ?

Thank you for that lucid explanation.

I suspect you are one of those nasty liberals, just like me!

Steve "pink liberal and PROUD of it" Hayes


>
>-- 
>_________________________________________________________________
>brew@mtek.com
>MTEK International, Inc.             Throughput Technology Corp.
>Throughput!
Steve Hayes, Department of Missiology & Editorial Department
Univ. of South Africa, P.O. Box 392, Pretoria, 0001 South Africa
Internet: hayesstw@risc1.unisa.ac.za
          steve.hayes@f20.n7101.z5.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: bgarfink@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (beth diane garfinkel)
Subject: Re: Gays in the military
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 22:26:54 GMT

In <1992Dec16.155006.13464@hemlock.cray.com> davew@willow03.cray.com (Dave Wagner) writes:


>But isn't that same (incorrect) assumption driving the seperate facilities
>for men/women?  Maybe not.  I just have trouble rationalizing the two.  If
>it's behavior that should be judged (like unwanted sexual advances) can't
>this be the same with men vs. women?  Actually, I'd like to hear some views
>of women?  Would you have more/less/the same comfort level showering with
>openly gay women as (straight) men.  Why?  But what if the men were happily
>married and made no sexual advances?  Shouldn't they be judged on behavior?

It is possible; I have been places where the common practice was for men
and women to shower together in open showers, where nothing sexual would
take place.  

I suppose that for hetero men, the thought of sharing the shower with
straight men could be compared to the stereotypical dilemma of the father of a 
teenage daughter: he wants to protect her from all guys she'll meet, because
they only "want one thing," which he "knows"  from his memory of being a 
teenager himself. I could see how some men might have trouble with the 
idea of a man looking at them the way they look at women.  

As for women "looking" at men, I personally agree that it is a
men's locker rooms and not let men into women's locker rooms, but my
solution would be to have no reporters in any locker rooms, PERIOD.  I
think that anyone that achieves celebrity status these days tends to pay
for it with too much lost privacy.  Let these guys shower and freshen up
in peace!

Shalom
								Beth
double-standard to let women into mens

>Just trying to come up with an internally consistant set of 'rules'.
>-- 
>Dave Wagner                               "Tongue-tied and twisted,
>davew@cray.com , uunet!cray!davew          just an earth-bound misfit, I"
>(612) 683-5393                                  -- Pink Floyd
-- 
"This must be Thursday.  I never could get the hang of Thursdays."
	-Arthur Dent, on being told that the Earth is about to blow up.
From: bud@mtek.com (Bud Hovell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: women marines/in military
Date: 21 Dec 92 02:33:56 GMT
Reply-To: bud@mtek.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: MTEK International, Inc.

wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Patrick Chester) writes:

>look a bit similar. About sailors with beards, the only reference I've found
>of that is WWII-era submarine crews. I don't know about modern sub crews
>exception, but in WWII beards were allowed while on sub patrols (they had
>to shave after they got back though.)

If memory serves, beards were allowed during sea-duty in the Zumwalt years,
also. (I don't recall if they were allowed ashore.) But that policy was
reversed after his retirement.
-- 
________________________________________________________________
bud@mtek.com ... uunet!m2xenix!mtek!bud ... bud@rigel.cs.pdx.edu
MTEK International, Inc.             Throughput Technology Corp.
Walk the talk.
From: bud@mtek.com (Bud Hovell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: women marines/in military
Date: 21 Dec 92 00:51:40 GMT
Reply-To: bud@mtek.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: MTEK International, Inc.

merlyn@digibd.digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes:

>Like I said, rationalizations, not reasons.  Doing things solely for
>'tradition' means doing things today because you did them that way
>yesterday.

Much like your postings.
-- 
________________________________________________________________
bud@mtek.com ... uunet!m2xenix!mtek!bud ... bud@rigel.cs.pdx.edu
MTEK International, Inc.             Throughput Technology Corp.
Walk the talk.
From: tonyz@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Tony Zugates)
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 22:02:50 GMT
Subject: Re: Rush
Organization: the HP Mtn.View Resp. Cntr.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct

Tommy... hi there.

I dont remember the exact figures, but perhaps 75% (please anyone
correct me) of the American public reads and comprehends at the 
6th or 7th grade level (thanks to our educational system). This
figure may be off because my source is about 10 years old.  

However, it may help explain the Rush phenomenon.  Back when 
Archie Bunker was on TV, the producers were shocked when they 
found out that a large portion of the viewing audience was 
actually identifying with and cheering on Archie...who was the
the butt of the joke !!!!!  go figure that! but remember the
previous statement...  Well, Archie isnt on TV any more and these
same people who identified with Archie didn't go anywhere..they are
still drinking beer, slapping around the wife, going to Monster Truck
shows and avoiding the Evening News at all costs... 

Therefore, Rush...he stepped in and took over...  I really envy
the guy..he is making millions off these people.

I will say one thing, I dont subscribe to his outrageous statements
and philosophy but he's a good businessman....like Oral Roberts
and Jimmy & Tammy ad nauseum...

		       
all disclaimers apply
"Nobody goes to bed hungry in America!"- R. Reagan


Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct