HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Muffy becomes anti-choice
X-To: MUFFY BARKOCY
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 03:31:00 GMT

muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
>In article <1992Dec23.045347.27287@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com
>(aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
>>In article <MUFFY.92Dec21182007@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley
>edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec21.190538.1@d0gslb.fnal.gov> holzman@d0gslb.fnal.gov (Dani
>l B. Holzman) writes:
>>>
>>>>Gee, Muffy, does this mean that you're anti-abortion?
>>>
>>>Nope.  I consider abortion to be *one way* of "dealing with the
>>>consequences."  A perfectly fine way, by the way, but not by any means
>>>the only one.

>>Abortion is not perfectly fine, it is NOT something great or glorious.
>[more of the same stupid interpretation deleted.]

>Actually, "perfectly fine" != "great or glorious."  Come back when you
>understand the English language.


Muffy, methinks that you were looking too hard for something to hurl
at Aaron.  I do not really believe that he was implying that "perfectly
fine" means "great" or "glorious," and I would think it to be stretching
to attempt to claim that he did.

IMHO, he was saying that abortion is not "perfectly fine," nor is it
"great" or "glorious," either.  He was not attempting to equate the
words, and I am at a loss to imagine why you could draw such an
inference.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Gravity: It's more than just a fragrance.  It's the LAW!"
   - Will Steeves, President, GOiDS "R" We, Inc.

 * SLMR 2.1a * Gene Police: "Hey YOU! Get out of this pool."
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,talk.abortion,misc.legal,alt.abortion.inequity
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal: Illegitimate-conception Tax
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 15:04:18 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.002301.28218@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod) writes:
>In article <1993Jan21.165017.6703@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>> In article <1993Jan21.134202.14357@aston.ac.uk> evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans) writes:
>> >Kevin Darcy (kevin@rotag.mi.org) wrote:
>> >: In article <1993Jan17.163155.20964@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>........
>> 
>> Women seeking to go on welfare are currently forced to reveal the paternity
>> of their children, unless there is a real danger that the father may commit
>> violence if his identity is revealed. The civil liberties organizations have
>> already fought that battle, and pretty much lost it. This Tax would require
>......
>
>     The statement that mothers requesting welfare are required to
>reveal paternity is only true in two or three states.  For the other
>fifty-one or fifty-two jurisdictions MOTHERS requesting WELFARE are
>NOT, repeat NOT, required to name the father.

Huh? Did they repeal Senator Russell Long's 1974 Amendments to the Social
Security Act which conditions AFDC eligibility on the co-operation of the
mother with local authorities in locating the father of her child?

After all of the Supreme Court battles, legislative battles, and administrative
tangles over these issues in the 70's, I'd be surprised to find it had all 
been undone in the meantime. Sources I have from as recently as 1985 tend to 
indicate that those federal AFDC rules are still in effect for all states.

								- Kevin
From: mjc5@po.CWRU.Edu (Michael J. Cavotta)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Abortion Questions
Date: 27 Jan 1993 01:09:19 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: mjc5@po.CWRU.Edu (Michael J. Cavotta)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc5.ins.cwru.edu


	I'm not sure if this is the best place to pose the following
questions, but I am hoping that any of you who have either had experience
with or education about abortion can help answer them.
	It is irrelevant for whom I am asking these questions, but if it
will head off any unnecessary commentary on the issue, I will present the
situation as if she were my girlfriend... who I will from here on refer to
as Dee.

	Dee has been on the pill (Orthonovum) for over two years without
incident, save this past month's absence of menstruation.  Ever since she
started using the pill, she has been predictably regular, nearly down to
the hour.  Two weeks ago, Dee missed her period.  
	During the previous month, she and I had only been together once, as we
had to spend the holidays apart.  During that one night, Dee took her pill
an hour later than usual.  Although not in the habit of doing so, she was
told by her doctor that as long as she took her pill about the same time   
each day, an hour here or there shouldn't matter.
	It has been exactly two weeks since she skipped.  Although at times
feeling like she was having her period, there was no bleeding, not even the
light spotting she usually has.  She is beginning to worry about the
possibility of being pregnant, though I don't think she has been
over-stressed by the thought of it.  She hasn't really given me reason to
believe there are any psychological explanations for her missing her
period, even though I have heard such things before.

	Anyway, are there any other possible explanations for this? (She
has not been on any medication at all).  Have any of you ever completely
missed your period before, especailly any of you who have been on the pill?
We are planning to get a home pregnancy test, but are a little skeptical of
their reliability.  Can any of you recommend one, if any?    

	Now for the big question.  If this is not some kind of a glitch, she
has no choice but to terminate the pregnancy.  She knows nothing about
abortion, nor can I at the moment offer her any help.  That's why I have
turned to you.  
	How does one go about planning for an abortion?  Are there ways to
make sure that the doctor knows what he/she is doing?  Cost is no object
when it comes to her safety.  Any information you can provide me, that I
might pass on to her will be greatly appreciated.  You can email your
responses to me, as Dee doesn't have net access.


Thank you so much...
-- 
Michael J. Cavotta                 
Proud American & NRA Member    (Down with the jibbering masses of liberalism!)
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------<
  "You either ride the steam-roller, or stand there whining and die" (Me).
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Thoughts on Sexual Harassment
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 93 19:55:42 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.180216.21755@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
>Interesting.  I'd say that there already were laws and practices against
>exposing oneself in public to any one of any gender,  and that these have
>been enforced in the past without labelling the practice 'sexual harassment'.
>
>To go back to your earlier example, do you think that adults would have put
>a stop to those boys who exposed themselves to other boys (or anybody else)
>if they knew it was happening?   I do.  I think they still would.

I don't know, in all honesty.  I would hope adults would do that.  I
also wonder if they wouldn't just laugh and say, "well, boys will be
boys."  (An attitude, btw, that hurts male victims of these bully boys
as much as female victims.)

>I think that calling exposure like this 'sexual harssment' is very
>misleading and ascribes implicitly motivation to the children that they don't
>have (most likely).  I hope people wake up to this before it's too late.  If
>they don't, it will in the longer term be self-correcting, IMO.  The 'magic'
>in the words of 'sexual harassment' will tend to go away as people get a
>more accurate impression of the range of behavior that it describes by
>personal experience.  Which seems likely to me if it is taught to them
>from school-age on.

My understanding is that there are two forms of sexual harassment: (1)
the actual "date me/screw me or lose this job, promotion, or housing;
and (2) an atmosphere, whether by bosses or coworkers, that makes it
extremely uncomfortable for someone to do her/his work.  I think the
harassment of girls about their bodies and by being called names with
sexual overtones (sluts, cunts, etc.) _is_ sexual harassment by the
latter definition.

BTW, I watched a PBS "workshop" a couple of months ago where a lawyer
stated that any unwanted touching by anyone can be considered sexual
harassment.  In other words, a hetero woman can put her hand on the
shoulder of another hetero woman and if the touchee doesn't like it,
asks that it not be done, yet it continues, it is sexual harassment.
The fact that the toucher doesn't have a sexual interest in the
touchee doesn't appear to matter.
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: What feminists believe (was: Re: Male Men Bashers)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: world 
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 20:01:25 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.161733.18089@llyene.jpl.nasa.gov> julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas) writes:

[opps, attribute ommitted, sorry]

>GA>I'm pretty sure you are in the minority (among feminists) on this
>GA>issue.  But if I'm wrong and this is a big issue with most feminists,
>GA>I'd like to know so that I can disassociate myself from the 
>GA>Women's Rights [hah!] Movement".
>
>This just once more shows how varied and how impossible it is to
>label anything or anyone as "feminist."  So many people call themselves 
>that (I do not) and carry such widely varied beliefs that it is
>useless to judge a person on the label "feminist."  

What if you judge based upon their words and the ideas they seem to be
conveying?

>                                                            When I've 
>posted about women's rights, I get jumped on by some people screaming
>about the horrible things "all feminists" believe.  

On the flip side, it is impossible to say anything not a glowing
testimonial to feminism, and not be accused of attacking feminism
as a whole (which is also claimed to be nonexistant).

>                                                       When I say
>I don't, I'm called a liar and the assumption women's rights ==
>"feminism" == all one belief structure, is made.  But I also get jumped
>on by people telling me my "feminism" is wrong or flawed.  I feel
>like if I'm to be included in the "feminist bunch" and be counted
>as a true "feminist" (whatever that is) I have to follow a strict 
>party line (as shown on the net) or be cast out.  

The situation is almost exactly parallel on the other side of the fence.
BTW, what is this "strict party line (as shown on the net)"? I would
really like to know what it is.
 
>I feel it's very ironic.

So do I.
 
>Julie
>DISCLAIMER:  All opinions here belong to my cat and no one else
>


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 17:10:35 EST
From: Jennifer R. Myhre <JM2249A@auvm.american.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.women,
Subject: womconsciousness raising

I am doing research on consciousness raising and would like to
interview women who have participated in a CR group.  My e-mail
address is jm2249a@american.edu for anyone who might be interested.
Please pass on the info to others as well.  Thanks a bunch.
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Thoughts on Sexual Harassment
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 03:54:43 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.195542.9355@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:

)BTW, I watched a PBS "workshop" a couple of months ago where a lawyer
)stated that any unwanted touching by anyone can be considered sexual
)harassment.  In other words, a hetero woman can put her hand on the
)shoulder of another hetero woman and if the touchee doesn't like it,
)asks that it not be done, yet it continues, it is sexual harassment.
)The fact that the toucher doesn't have a sexual interest in the
)touchee doesn't appear to matter.
)

I think this is a good example of the problem with the current definition
of 'sexual harassment'.  To be blunt, 'sexual harassment' is not really
the best choice of term to describe generic unwanted touching - IMO.

Do we really need a federal law to prohibit all touching in the workplace?
In the schools?

In addition, if you believe Industry Week (Nov 18, 1991)  looking at someone
in a way they don't like can be considered to be 'sexual harassment'.  No
touching needed. I rather hope that they are being alarmist here, but I have
an unfortunate feeling that perhaps they are not.

I'm just waiting for the first 'but he was *looking* at me' case to come
up in school.

Maybe it will wake people up, I dunno.


Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism
From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Subject: Re: What feminists believe (was: Re: Male Men Bashers)
Date: 26 Jan 93 04:14:28 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1993Jan23.201809.730@hellgate.utah.edu> galt%peruvian.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Greg Alt) writes:
>In article <1993Jan22.093251.30@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>>>12. Women should be drafted as well, where a draft exists.
>>
>>YES.
>
>Why is this a feminist issue?  Currently, men's rights are denied by the
>draft, so you would like women to have the same rights taken away?  That
>is ridiculous.  To call that a feminist view is even more ridiculous.

I have serious reservations about drafts in general, and am glad that
no draft currently exists in my country [USA - registration <> draft].

However, to have men be drafted and not women reinforces the &*)% gender
roles about how men are to sacrifice themselves for the sake of women 
& children and that women are helpless little darlings that can barely
wipe their own behinds, much LESS do anything useful or productive.

To summarize: I prefer no draft [and no registration]. However, if there
is a draft, it should be of both genders.

Yes, I've written my rep & senators on this issue.

-jen
Xref: sparky soc.women:23185 bit.listserv.catholic:4605
From: MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET (Marty Helgesen)
Newsgroups: soc.women,bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: PREGNANCY
Date: 28 Jan 93 16:37:59 GMT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

In article <1993Jan28.150135.1@vaxa.strath.ac.uk>, clg292@vaxa.strath.ac.uk
says:
>
>I am fed up with all this talk about catholic women and abortion.
>I feel that it is wrong for people to moralise about this subject as it is a
>situation that very few women will have to face and therefore will never have
>to consider .
>As a devout catholic women I had NO reservations about having an abortion at
>6 months into my pregnancy.
<<Stuff omitted>>
>Eileen

Neither Wilberforce in Britain nor the abolitionists in the United States
had to consider the question of whether or not they should own slaves.
Therefore, by your reasoning, they should not have moralized about it.

Incidentally, you seem to have discovered a hitherto unknown definition
of the word "devout."
-------
Marty Helgesen
Bitnet: mnhcc@cunyvm   Internet: mnhcc@cunyvm.cuny.edu

"Experience beats in vain upon a congenital progressive."
        --  C. S. Lewis
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: What does "Male-dominated society" mean?
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1993 18:13:38 GMT

In article <1jhohpINNmqg@emx.cc.utexas.edu> dpaxton@emx.cc.utexas.edu (Debi Paxton) writes:
)In article <1j7v04INN3o8@transfer.stratus.com> dswartz@redondo.sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber) writes:
):In article <1993Jan16.030349.24260@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
):>So, my father is an animal who can't control himself, right?  And yet,
):>he managed to control his anger against a boss he hated and some men
):>he worked with that he didn't like.  My father has never been arrested
):>for striking another man.  So how about, my father knew that he would
):>get into deep shit by beating another man, but not by beating his wife
):>and his daughter?  Now, what were you saying about a proscription
):>against violence towards women?
)
):I'm afraid you're missing the point.  Lack of control is not an
):absolute.  And as to why he would beat up on his wife and daughter
):but not another man?  Couldn't be because they were smaller and
):weaker and couldn't fight back effectively, wherease another man
):might whip his cowardly ass?  Nah, that couldn't be it!
)
)Actually, I believe you have missed the point.
)
)If a man goes out and beats up a smaller and weaker person who
)is not a family member, he will be charged with assault and hauled
)off to jail.   But for many, many years, in most communities, a
)man's home was his castle and what he did to his wife
)and kids was considered his personal business.

I think you are missing a point too.

If a woman goes and beats up her husband, she won't be charged with assault
either.  But it happens.

There have been reports of people who complain about domestic violence
against them by their wives being told to 'handle it like a man' by the
authorities, in fact.  [Net-post-personal experience sort of stuff.]

The perscription against medelling in domestic violence is real - but
it applies to both genders.  IMO.  And the statistics I've seen (and
quoted many a time) seem to indicate that violence is at least commesurate
in both directions, if one uses any sort of survey-based data rather
than police reports.

Newsgroups: soc.women
From: lingling@abraxas.adelphi.edu (Lisa Nyman)
Subject: Subway gropers
Organization: Adelphi University
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 12:20:02 GMT


Yesterday, my sister got on a New York City subway train at 42nd St. and
at 96th, a guy stood behind her (note: The train was jammed as it
was rush hour) and she felt what she thought was a gym bag bumping into 
her behind.  At 103rd St. the train emptied a bit and she turned and saw    
that there was no gym bag or bag of any kind and was utterly surprised
that this guy had been feeling her  the whole time.  She was sort of
stunned and didn't know what to do.  The guy moved away and stood by 
another woman and my sister thought he would do the same theng to her,
but couldn't see his hands.  She did, though, see the guy lean over
and smell the other woman's hair, and as my sister got off right after that,    
she said *loudly* to the woman something to the effect of - Watch out
for the guy behind you, he's probably been feeling your rear like he'd
been doing to mine.  So, the question is, what would some of you have done
at the moment you realized there was no gym bag.  My sister was stunned
because after 7 years of living in NYC, this was the first time
something like this happened.  
--
Lisa Wolfisch Nyman         "Life is too short to wear ugly underwear."
panda@syrinx.umd.edu                    
Just remember, geographers do it in places unknown to the general public.
New from Dweeb Publishers: Memoirs of a Workstation Widow, Oh the Agony of It
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism
From: julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas)
Subject: Re: What feminists believe (was: Re: Male Men Bashers)
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 15:31:41 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.201809.730@hellgate.utah.edu> galt%peruvian.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Greg Alt) writes:
>In article <1993Jan22.093251.30@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>>>12. Women should be drafted as well, where a draft exists.
>>
>>YES.
>
>Why is this a feminist issue?  Currently, men's rights are denied by the
>draft, so you would like women to have the same rights taken away?  That
>is ridiculous.  To call that a feminist view is even more ridiculous.

Not everyone feels a draft under certain circumstances would be 
wrong.

Too often, women are denied entry into something and people say
things to the effect 'it's bad for men so women shouldn't have to
do it'.  It does no good for women's rights for women to be "protected" 
from something, even if many people find that something to be bad.

If women want true equality they must be equal in all ways, including
times when it may not be much fun.  Including women in a draft is
very much a feminist issue.  How many times on the net have we heard
people say that women have it so much better because they don't
have to worry about a draft or combat positions?  This is then
often used to justify things like less pay for the same work.  Treating
women 'better' or in a 'special' manner makes it much easier for
people to deny them equality in other circumstances.

Julie
DISCLAIMER:  All opinions here belong to my cat and no one else




Newsgroups: soc.women
From: kelley@naswtx.UUCP (Kelley Smith)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Male Men Bashers
Date: 22 Jan 93 16:42:19 GMT
Organization: CONNECT BBS

> 
> Well I agree with everything you wrote in most part, but because
> of my gender I cant realy be called a feminist (Can I??).  So 
> maybe your not a feminist either, unless I'm missing something
> you seam like Socialy concernd person that holds many beliefs 
> that I myself do, or do I not tottaly understand the word feminist?
> 
  
There are lots of men who call themselves feminists.  It is not an 
exclusively for women movement.  A feminist is anyone who believes that 
gender should not play in decisions on what a person is/is not 
able/allowed to do.
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Male Men Bashers
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 00:43:50 GMT

In article <93020.190448RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET> <RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:

)-9.  Jokes putting women down are sexist.  Jokes putting men down are funny.
)-    (This is terrible, I know, and I feel guilty.  I know
)-    its wrong but... but... well, I'm working on it.  Q:  How many
)-    feminists does it take to screw in a light bulb?  A:  Thats not funny.)
)-10. Men and women should be paid the same for doing the same job.
)-11. Jobs
)-    that have traditionally been done by women are underpaid (like nursing).
)-12. Women should be drafted as well, where a draft exists.
)-13. There is an epidemic of male violence against women.

An interesting mixture.  Especially number 9.  I can see that as
AnActualFeeling, but why on earth would anyone put it into a definition of
'feminism'????

#10 I can agree with

#11 I'm not sure about

#12 I agree with

#13 is pure propaganda with little basis in fact that I've found.  Violent
crime has not been increasing at any sort of 'epidemic' rate.  Furthermore,
when one actually looks, the victims of most crimes have been and continue to
be men.  (Also, as I have pointed out a few time, men are over-represented in
prison, or women under-represented, for the crimes they commit.)

There's been  a lot more *publicity* about crimes against women -
but that doesn't mean it really happens as much as it's touted.  One of the
sorrier examples (IMO) of fairly-recent media hype.