HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Feminist=Equality? Errrr.... Nope.
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 03:40:47 GMT

In article <1jsu77INNlh4@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>roarf@stud.cs.uit.no (Just this guy) writes:
>
>>Don't you realize what a powerful weapon any woman has against any man
>>if she is cruel enough? 
>
>Don't you realize how costly it is for a woman (in terms of time, money,
>and especially in terms of emotional stress) to make such a false 
>accusation.  Rape trials are not much fun -- especially not with 
>society's "blame the victim" mentality and the "oh she's just a slut"
>defense!


It may be costly on a personal level if the claim is valid. But if the
rape charge is made falsely out of malice or a wish for revenge, I imagine
it would still have some degree of personal satisfaction.

Why is the opposite of 'blame the victim', -the accused must be guilty-?
Would a rational woman make false accusations of rape?
 
 
>                                                --  Michal
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Impressive amounts of material can be accreted in this manner.


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women
From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Subject: Re: Male Men Bashers
Date: 26 Jan 93 03:58:10 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1993Jan23.021251.7678@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>In article <1993Jan17.014306.7372@adobe.com> kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan15.182148.7154@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>>>	Ahem.  Anyone who truly believes that women seek "nice, sensitive
>>>	guys" for their mates is seriously deluded.
>>
>>I am a woman and I wanted a "nice, sensitive guy".  
>
>	How old were you?
>
>	This is precisely my point.  I accept that women change *after*
>	they age, but the fact is, young women actively seek out the
>	abusive, until they mature and get a little self respect 
>	(say, age 28 to 30, earlier for some, later or never for others).

From the time I was 14, I've avoided self-centered jerks.
I've had three dates try to become abusive (one hit me; 
another strong-armed me to show that he didn't "have" to accept
my refusal to have sex, another threw his drink at me and screamed
obscene names). In each case, that's been the end of the relationship.
Each of these cases, btw, were before I turned 21.

I simply consider that kind of behaviour too dangerous to put up
with it.  

If "the women in your sphere" are idiots, why not look elsewhere?

-jen
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:7594 soc.women:23019
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Feminist=Equality? Errrr.... Nope.
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 04:05:24 GMT

In article <1993Jan17.171416.24249@nmsu.edu> dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg) writes:
>In article <1993Jan16.023816.25795@hellgate.utah.edu> galt%peruvian.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Greg Alt) writes:
>
>(stuff deleted)
>>  And of course, the only reason why women get paid 2/3 of
>>what a man gets paid for the same job is that women do 1/3 less work.
>
>
>O.K., I'm calling you on this.  You wrote this in the present tense
>and without qualifiers like, "I know a woman who gets..."  O.K., let's
>see some evidence that women get paid 2/3 that of men for doing _the
>same job_.  Finding evidence for THAT should keep you busy...


Well, this was in the Mercury news on 17 Jan 1993.

Salary levels and pay raise outlook (from the College Placement Salary
Level Survey, a survey with over 2000 respondents, pay raise data ommitted)

			      Sept 1991                       July 1992

Average opening salary	Male		Female		Male		Female	

Accounting		$26,971		$29,318		$27,404		$27,327
Advertising		$22,526		$20,963		$22,048		$20,796
Elementary Education	$21,546		$19,158		$22,676		$20,176
Phychology		$21,956		$19,677		$22,034		$19,647
Mechanical Engineering	$33,893		$34,488		$34,328		$35,561
Agribusiness		$23,717		$22,959		$23,328		$24,155
Computer Science	$30,558		$31,074		$31,132		$31,289
Mathematics		$28,236		$26,759		$30,785		$26,853


I do not know what the biases of the study are, or how representative these
numbers are, but unless they are grossly innacurate, women are not making
$.59/$1.00. If this claim has indeed become an urban legend, then the actual
numbers do not matter.
 
>-David "ZZYZX" Steinberg- King of the ellipses
>       (dsteinbe@emmy.nmsu.edu)


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Verbs and gender connotations
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 03:53:42 GMT

In article <3227@tymix.Tymnet.COM> baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich) writes:
>In article <1993Jan23.033518.23262@leland.Stanford.EDU>, farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>|> In article <3205@tymix.Tymnet.COM> baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich) writes:
>|> >I maintain, however, that the cultural connotation to the active verb 
>|> >"to fuck" is masculine.
>|> 
>|> I'm not sure it is cultural.  Although for once, you and Dworkin agree
>|> on something, since she seems to think it is too.
>
>I am curious as to why you say this. I don't believe I've ever mentioned
>Dworkin or her ideas on the net.

My apologies.  I thought you were one of many who have written posts
that disagree with Dworkin.
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Verbs and gender connotations
Date: 21 Jan 93 11:10:20
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<MUFFY.93Jan20192740@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<1993Jan21.094417.15750@leland.Stanford.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU's message of Thu, 21 Jan 93 09:44:17 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.094417.15750@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
> Women don't even need toys to fuck men.  They can use their fingers
> and/or hands.

*smile*...good point...slight brain fault there...*grin*.

Muffy

--

Muffy Barkocy                      |~Never had a lot of faith in human beings/
muffy@mica.berkeley.edu            | but sometimes we manage to shine/like a
"amorous inclinations"? Aha! I'm   | light on a hill beaming out to space/from
not "not straight," I'm *inclined*.| somewhere hard to find~ - Bruce Cockburn
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Feminist=Equality? Errrr.... Nope.
Date: 24 Jan 1993 02:19:34 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

jay@UUSERV.CC.UTAH.EDU (Jay Deuel) writes:

>Funny how a WOMAN isn't too concerned about false accusations, which 
>means an innocent MAN is procecuted!  This seems like the wrong approach to 
>getting people to listen to true accusations.  (sounds like a witch hunt)

Funny how most women are more concerned that rape trials are such an 
unpleasant process for the plaintiff that most rapists are never brought
to court.
-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Impressive amounts of material can be accreted in this manner.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women,soc.men,soc.singles
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Subject: Re: The Nice Guy Syndrome (was: Re: Male Men Bashers)
Followup-To: alt.feminism,soc.women,soc.men,soc.singles
Organization: Aston University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL241235]
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 16:41:05 GMT

Just this guy (roarf@stud.cs.uit.no) wrote:
: 
: Sounds reasonable in a way. What you say is that many men
: (and women) create a mask of "warm-and-caring", and when the
: woman (man) discovers there is something cold etc behind that
: mask he/she (it?) decides that _all_ non-jerks are bogus.

I think it is possible that someone acting the part may do a more convincing
job, than a genuine individual.
After all they know what to actively hide. 
Whereas the genuine would not be (activly) "telling" their partner how nice 
they were. (And might be more likely to show their faults)

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Evans                                   |evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 429 9199  (Home)                    |evansmp@cs.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 359 6531 x4039 (Office)             |
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Boycotts (was Re: Why are many low-income women fat?)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 02:05:17 GMT

In article <JBrandt-270193130032@fp1-dialin-1.uoregon.edu> JBrandt@AAA.Uoregon.EDU (Pegasus) writes:
>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.  

While this may be correct.

>                           Foods that are high in fats and starches are
>cheeper in cost then those that are not. 

This is not. Eat more vegetables (fresh vegatables are the cheapest foods
in the store, and the most nutritious), less meats (high fats and high cost),
and balance with breads and pasta (relatively inexpensive as well).

>You buy what you can afford.

You buy what you have learned to buy, no matter how inappropriate that
may be.

>  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. 

Stay away from this part of the store. You will spend more and get far less.

>        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.

I would go easy on those medical findings. Take cholesterol. First that said
that -all- cholesterol ws bad (caused arterial plaques). Further studies
showed that this was a bit simplistic, there were two types, high-density
and low-density, the good and bad cholesterol. So people have been eating
low cholesterol foods. A recent study shows that older men with low cholesterol
levels have significantly higher levels of clinical depression than those
with high colesterol. And it seems that high cholesterol is more normal for
women. Who knows what tomorrows advice will be, perhaps eat foods high in
cholesterol.

BTW, I know a woman who was having joint problems till she added salt back
in her diet. 

The simplest and best advice that I have read is to just eat real foods.
Reduce your intake of highly processed and junk foods, and you will eat
healthier, and much cheaper. A good diet is the less expensive option.

>Why are they fatter, its more cost effective to buy the cheepest food which
>are high fat ect.

You mean the cheapest meats and processed foods, and it is not cost effective
at all.
 
>Pegasus



Rich

payner@netcom.com
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Feminism vs. the Sexual Revolution (was: Are special programs sexist/racist? (long)
Date: 21 Jan 93 20:20:55 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1993Jan21.175018.13801@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <C15qIC.GuD@news.cso.uiuc.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
>>A few days later I thought about this conversation. I realized that
>>in 1963, I could not have thus admitted to an older person I knew
>>in an official capacity that I was "living in sin" -- no matter how
>>nice they were.
>
>Interesting, you attribute this to feminism?

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."


-- 
  
        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)
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:7706 soc.women:23156
From: pepke@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women
Subject: Re: Male Men Bashers
Date: 27 Jan 93 01:02:13 GMT
Reply-To: pepke@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: Florida State University, but I don't speak for them

In article <1993Jan21.022029.20658@adobe.com> kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall) writes:
>Yes, I agree.  There are many *people* who see no further than their own
>situation.  "Every man for himself."  is a cliche that comes to mind.  
>The distrust of "feminist" is understood, but not the blanket comdemnation.

I have sympathy.  There seem to be an unusually large number of very ignorant
statements about feminism lately.

However, there's something else, which has been pretty much constant for 
at least as long as this newsgroup has been in existence, and longer on other
newsgroups.  There always seems to be someone who consistently interprets
every possible criticism of every person who could even vaguely be called a
feminist in any context whatsoever as an attack on all feminists everywhere.

There doesn't seem to be any way of preventing this from happening.  I 
wouldn't worry about it any more than farts in the wind except for the fact
that it seems, at least partially, to work.  Discussion on the relevant topics,
which sometimes has the potential of being interesting and enlightening, 
stops and is replaced by rhetorical quibbling over straw men.  Catch phrases,
such as "using x to bash feminism," start showing up in other postings.  It
doesn't just happen on the net--a considerable portion of _Backlash_ by Susan
Faludi consists of this stuff.

I'm not sure what motivates the people who do this.  Maybe they believe what
they are saying.  Maybe they feel they are defending truth, justice, and the
American Way.  Maybe they are trying to polarize the issue and build up 
mistrust between people.  In any event, the behavior seems to get in the way
of valuable discussion.

I try to avoid believing straw men, regardless of which "side" of the 
discussion they are on.  Nevertheless, I know it is difficult.

So, I have a question for you.  Not speaking as anybody else or a member of
any group, just as you.  (Others are, of course, invited to answer for 
themselves.)  When this stuff happens, does it influence you significantly?
Are you less likely to try to understand a criticism if someone else has
misrepresented it as an attempt to destroy all of feminism or an attempt to
censor or suppress what somebody has said?

-EMP
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:7612 soc.women:23036
From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women
Subject: Re: Male Men Bashers
Date: 25 Jan 93 15:37:07 GMT
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

maufd@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Mr J S Graley) writes:
: In article <C145K6.MDz@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
: |In article <1jhfhbINNdim@lily.csv.warwick.ac.uk> maufd@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Mr J S Graley) writes:
: |
: |>|  The fact that that you can cite specific individual examples, doesn't
: |>|  mean that it's true as a rule.  As I said in an earlier posting, *I*
: |>|  know women who are attracted to abusive bozos, and I know abusive 
: |>|  bozos and and I hope they're very happy together.  But I also know 
: |>|  plenty of nice guys with happy marriages to women they love.
: |>
: |>Are you in any more of a position to disprove the assertion than I am to 
: |>prove it?
: |
: |  ( Why do I have to re-explain this on every newsgroup? )   Don't they
: |  teach logic where you come from?   
: 
: You talk about logic rather a lot, for a dumb shit.
: 
: I have been taught about logic. Let's see if _my_ idea of logic matches
: yours.
: 
: (1) We cannot ever prove an assertion about the real world. The only proofs
:     we can make are within logical systems where the definitions are commonly
:     accepted.
: 
: (2) There is bound to be a certain vagueity in the definitions of
:     concepts within debates on subjects such as sociology, politics,
:     morals and so on. Thus our arguments, whilst mirroring logical proofs,
:     can only be said to have a high likleyhood of being true.
: 
: (3) There are many ways in which somebody's argument can be invalid. A 
:     disagreement on the definitions (for example the definition of what is
:     morally correct) and a mistake in the deductions. It is my belief that
:     the former is far more prevailant.
: 
: Now you go on about documentation. Are you not familiar with how easy it is
: to fiddle and misuse statistics etc? Would you regard it as your 'proof' if
: I made up a newspaper article about it?
: 
: I really am surprised that you can't see how a weak definition of feminism
: is fraudulent. At the end of the day, if you refuse to see sense, that's
: your lookout. Other people see the point.
: 
: ~THE GREAT NAME
: -- 
:     Don't worry,
:      Its like in the comic books...
:       ITS NOT REAL!

But, you complete jackass, YOU HAVEN'T EVEN MADE ANY ARGUMENTS!  
You've made assertions, and refused to provide any evidence for 
them.  You've stated that anybody who refuses to take each of 
your unsupported assertions as gospel.  You've attacked some
personal vision you have of feminism, and refused to tell 
anybody what that definition is.  You've spouted blanket
generalizations and demanded that others either accept them or
rigorously disprove them.  Please finish your freshman logic
seminar, learn to argue rationally, or shut the hell up and
stop bothering the grownups, Mr. Name.

Bill
From: jcrabtree@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Hillary's Role in the White House
Date: 27 Jan 93 04:38:57 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Wright State University

In article <MATT.93Jan26122319@physics2.berkeley.edu>, matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) writes:
> In article <2553@blue.cis.pitt.edu> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:
> 
>> Call it a promise, a goal, a duck or your aunt Tilly, Bill insisted that
>> this wouldn't happen and assured us we had nothing to worry about concerning 
>> Hillary's role in his administration
> 
> I'm sorry, apparently I wasn't following the campaign closely enough.
> I never heard Bill Clinton promise that his wife wouldn't have any
> substantive policy role in his Administration, and I never heard him
> promise that he she wouldn't be appointed to any Executive Branch
> position.  Does anybody happen to remember when Bill Clinton made a
> speech promising that?

Whatever he said or didn't say, there are laws against nepotism that say
something to the effect that a president cannot legally appoint a (close?)
relative to a position.  Otherwise, Hillary is as much if not more qualified
than many people considered for various positions.

> 
> Actually, I do remember him hinting that she would have some
> substantive policy role (possibly dealing with children's issues), and
> I'm glad to see that this has turned out to be true.  She seems to be
> quite competent, and I see no reason why being married to the
> President should disqualify her.  (Unless, of course, her husband
> really did make that phantom promise.)

See above.  A First Lady will have some influence over the President if by
simply being married to him.  A spouse must influence the other simply by
existence.  I think Hillary will unofficially be one of Clinton's top advisors.
At least, I hope she will.


> --
> Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
> (510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
> austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
> matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!

Jason D. Crabtree
Human Factors Engineering
Wright State University
jcrabtree@desire.wright.edu
From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women
Subject: Re: Male Men Bashers
Date: 25 Jan 93 15:11:47 GMT
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

maufd@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Mr J S Graley) writes:
: In article <C12AGu.CBA@srgenprp.sr.hp.com> sam@sad.hp.com (Vicky Hansen) writes:
: |Yamanari (rsrodger@wam.umd.edu) wrote:
: |: Anyone age 16-28 today and actively
: |: dating knows that the more desirable a woman, the more 
: |: she seeks the abusive bozo.  
: |
: |Since I do not like that type, does this say I am not desirable or do I have
: |an out because I am well over 28?  
: 
: It says, very simply, that you are lying.
: 
: ~THE GREAT NAME
: -- 
:     Don't worry,
:      Its like in the comic books...
:       ITS NOT REAL!

You really don't put much thought into these posts, do you, Great
Name?  Please try to post something that isn't shallow, boorish
and inane; it's really impossible to carry on a polite conversation
with a man who is completely convinced that he knows everything
there is to know and that everybody else is a fool.  That's 
probably why you don't get laid much.

Bill

Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.abortion.inequity