HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Male bashing in other newsgroups
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 23:57:07 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.155651.7049@bnr.ca> yali@bnrca (Yawar Ali) writes:
)
)
)In article <1992Sep10.135825.8009@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:
)
)|> As the person who posted the list in the first place, let me
)|> put it into perspective.
)|> 
)|> 1)  It is a one way thing.  That is what bothers me.  I really feel
)|>     that women make up lists of these things that men (all men 
)|>     supposedly) are guilty of and we are supposed to enjoy a good
)|>     laugh at our expense.  Well Try to turn it around and see how
)|>     much jolly laughter the woman have when we complain.  I
)|>     doubt that very much.
)|>
)
)You're missing the point: the item you posted is PRECISELY an example
)of women 'turning around' towards men the same kind of sexist and
)misogynistic characterizations that are so prevalent in society,
)the media, and, yes, on soc.men. So it is not a "one way thing".
)Your reaction seems to indicate that you don't find this very amusing.
)
)Fine. Your arguments against this practice would have more credibility
)if they denounced ALL forms of <substitute-your-favorite-group>-bashing,
)not just put-down humor directed at men by women. 

Actually, it is the existence and sexually biased enforcement of current
vague 'sexual harassment' "guidelines" that give this problem the
non-reciprocal element that it does (IMO) have.

If the person felt free to 'reply in kind' with his own obnoxious poster,
without *legal action*, there wouldn't be (IMO) any element of legal
non-reciprocity in the situation.

Actually, having a chat with the HR department might not be a bad idea.
However, one would have to be very careful on how one did it (IMO).  If
one simply asked their advice on how to deal with such material, there
shouldn't be much of a problem - just asking their advice.  If one was told
to ignore it (unlikely, IMO)  one could then ask if it would be acceptable to
post similar material oneself.  This could start to get dangerous, though
:-(.  If HR showed a clear inconsistency (and they well might), one could
probably take them to court.  Would it be worth it?  Perhaps not.  On the
other hand, HR might be eager and anxious to interfere 'for the good of all'.
 In this case, there isn't a problem of sexism.  The issue is whether one
wants to accept the HR department's 'help' in the matter, or not.  Actually,
there's a fairly good chance that the HR department will hem and haw and not
do much at all and refuse to commit to anything whatsoever :-(.

Personally, I think we are better off without 'authority' trying to regulate
<your-favorite-group-bashing> on the whole.  I don't think that's really
an appropriate job for our Federal courts (which is where, ultimately, the
suitability of posters wrt. sexual harassment is decided!).  It's amazing
to me that they're willing to do it (esp. in light of the first ammendment),
but that's another issue for another long series of posts :-).

Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.feminism
From: ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic)
Subject: Re: Feminists ignore Cosmetics?
Organization: TFS
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 06:29:23 GMT

Children believe in the world they grow up in. Had I not grown into a
world where 100% of women shaved their armpits and legs, I might find
attractive a woman who did shave, but I would think it odd. Instead,
women who don't shave seem odd. But then I've thought about this; and
I know that it's a "fault in my perception due to historical circumstance",
and I have the conscious option to make a conscious change in my outlook.
I decided that body hair on females is sexy because that's what my
"unmanaged, uncorrected" perception is. So if that amounts to a "vote",
the vote seems to be that females look fine without having to modify
themselves that way. In fact I am surprised that the reply to my saying to
women "why not quit shaving? I think body hair is fine", is most often
"I feel better when I do." I encourage them to explore behaving as they
themselves prefer without reference to external judgement, but that takes
practice and courage, and a supportive environment, which in America is
conspicuous by its absence.

Cosmetics can make a woman appear very glamorous, more so "than she was".
But I know (usually) that she's wearing it and I do a mental subtraction
which says, she's very good looking this way but what does she really look
like? I have known women who were morbidly afraid of facing anyone without
being made up, very sad. Worse, they were all natively very attractive,
how tragic to be in possession of the very qualities they felt they needed
to be judged acceptable and not be able to accept it of themselves.

If to a male the most beautiful thing in the world is a naked female,
this means naked, without affectation. Adam to Eve: let's make love.
Eve to Adam: I have to put on my eyeliner first. Fantasies are wonderful,
but nothing is more beautiful than the truth. The female is beautiful
to the male because she is his human, magnetic-energetic equal and his
physical counterpart and their mutual desire is complete and pure in the
moment - without having to run to the 7-11 for lip gloss.

I think of cosmetics as a mask. If I want to kiss you, take off the mask.
If I am to know you, take off your mask! If you want to wear the mask for
fun, have fun. But when things get quiet and still as we begin to share
souls, the closer I get to your face the easier it is to see that your
makeup consists of small flecks and smudges of colored stuff and that it
is a foreign substance on your body and not part of it - it's what's IN
the eyes that matters, not the stuff around it. After we make love your
makeup has run and smeared - it's just silly. In the romantic image of the
couple running together at the edge of the ocean on a beach in the Bahamas,
your makeup will not survive to go swimming. You can't be any more
beautiful than you are as you are.

The most desirable woman is the one who accepts her desirability.

-ecsd
Xref: sparky soc.men:16404 soc.women:16571 alt.child-support:3180 alt.dads-rights:2267
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Date: 14 Sep 92 18:37:01 GMT
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory

In article <1992Sep14.161256.28242@news.nd.edu> slarsen@monet.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:
>In article <1992Sep11.233552.8746@u.washington.edu> hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress) writes:
>>Susan Larsen wrote:
>>     "There are practical reasons for a father to 
>>     have knowledge of his children,  too.  
>>     These children could make claims against the 
>>     father's estate, for example."
>>
>>Does Sue think Dads should be made to be money slaves?
>
>Pick on someone else, Mr. EuStress.  I'm too busy earning a 
>living and supporting my child.
>
>Sue Larsen
>slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu

	You've got enough time to read news.........  -;(

-- 
	Alan Yasutovich
	"inquiring  (and nosey) minds WANT TO KNOW!!!"
	I can remember when "safe sex" meant having a padded headboard!!
	Tick Tock.....Tick Tock......Tick Tock .....Tick Tock......
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Dworkin...
Date: 10 Sep 92 05:01:32 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: The Piranha Club

;Censorship and bookburning is obviously going to hurt the gender NOT in
;power more than it will hurt the one that IS.

#While it *sounds* true, I'm not sure it is.
#
#Think about two historical examples, and please give yes/no answers.
#
#1) Did the draft hurt women more than it hurt men?
#
#2) Did the Prohibition hurt women more than it hurt men?

In article <1992Sep9.215030.28900@midway.uchicago.edu> 
mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>How in the heck is either of these an example of censorship and 
>bookburning?

The heck is that the gender NOT in power (at least by feminist
analysis...) was hurt much less by the above operations.

Methinks that censorship will hurt men more because women will 
manage to define the Politically Correct porno as "erotica" and/or
"art" while burning the Politically Incorrect porno.
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Birth control failures
Date: 10 Sep 92 23:54:41 GMT
Organization: Duke University Computer Science Dept.; Durham, N.C.

##The two condoms in the worst group - LifeStyles Extra Strength with
##Nonoxynol-9 (a spermicide) and LifeStyles Nude Plus - flunked [the
##airbrust test], with more than 10 percent projected failures.  In
##some lots, up to half the tested samples failed. [Consumer Reports]

In article <trussell.716160367@cwis> 
trussell@cwis.unomaha.edu (Tim Russell) writes:

>    I know that CR is usually very reputable with regards to testing,
>but I have to wonder if they didn't happen to somehow get hold of a bad
>batch of some sort.  

CR's usual method of testing is going to the store and buying, in 
random, the item they test.  They don't ask for any cooperation 
from the companies that produce it.

CR suspected that they just hit a bad batch, and they gave 
several inductions for that.  Among them:
#Note that LifeStyles Extra Strength models without spermicide 
#performed so well that it earned number two spot in the best group.

>I was also under the impression that the government
>does some sort of regulation of testing, 

The government testing is by filling condoms with 10 ounces of water
and looking for leaks.  I think that the airbrust test is more
realistic because it puts a similar pressure on all the condom.

>and in any case I simply refuse
>to believe that more than 10 percent of this brand of condom fail.

The report was from March 1989.  It is quite possible that 
the company has managed either to improve its producing stage,
or to use better quality control procedures.

>    Tim Russell                 Omaha, NE              trussell@unomaha.edu

Hillel                                             gazit@cs.duke.edu

"In my own personal experience I've had better luck with people 
than with latex devices,"  --  Dana Bergen
Xref: sparky soc.men:15997 soc.women:16195 alt.feminism:653
From: bel@ssc.wa.com (Belinda Frazier)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Feminists ignore Cosmetics?
Date: 4 Sep 92 16:31:12 GMT
Organization: SSC, Inc.,  Seattle, WA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

sklautky@vaxa.weeg.uiowa.edu (Stephen Klautky) writes:
: In article <BtywGK.M6J@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
: So, I have a question for you feminist or feminist-leaning
: women.  Are you bothered that a man appreciates the look of a
: woman in makeup better than without makeup?

No.
	What else do you want to know?	
-- 

bel@ssc.wa.com   or   uunet!nwnexus!ssc!bel 
Xref: sparky soc.men:16042 soc.women:16231 alt.child-support:3068
From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: EuStress Has Trouble With Words
Date: 7 Sep 92 00:17:38 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Sep6.104445.23280@wolves.uucp> woody@wolves.uucp (Woody Muller) writes:

>Eustress has apparently never gone to court to fight for his rights
>to see his kids.  Therefore, the court hasn't had a chance to even
>consider holding the mother in contempt.  You, of all people, should
>appreciate the value of telling your side of the story, and not bending
>over like Eustress and expecting the court to decide fairly based
>on the opposition's evidence alone.

Actually, there is something fundamentally wrong with a system where
officials [judges] with the full punitive power of the state behind
them make binding decisions "for the good of parties involved" without
making an independent determination of the facts.

-- 
Richard Harter: SMDS Inc.  Net address: rh@smds.com Phone: 508-369-7398 
US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742.    Fax: 508-369-8272
In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.
From: kamchar@ibm.cl.msu.edu (SunCat)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: "A Feminist" (was Re: Barbara H.)
Date: 4 Sep 92 20:25:57 GMT
Organization: Michigan State University

Yow!  Semantics.  Exciting, irritating, none the less important.  Pay  
attention to semantics and you avoid fights.  I would have to call someone  
a self-identified-feminist if they call themselves feminist.  My  
definition of "feminist" means someone who wants women to expand  
themselves into full personhood.  But that's my definition.  Your mileage  
may vary.  Some semanticist or other suggested that words should appear  
with subscripts to indicate which particular meaning was intended.  When I  
say "Feminist" it carries my subscript.  As for me, the women that most  
men here object to I call "fake feminists" or just plain "fascist".  If  
this kind of thing bothers you, be sure to miss the Greater Lansing Area  
in Michigan.  Sure are a lot of them here.


=========SunCat++++     | kamchar@ibm.cl.msu.edu
"Congress is not the sole suppository [sic] of wisdom."
  -- Rep. Bill Schuette (R-Mich)
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: steve@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au (Steve Balogh (+61 3 565 4747))
Subject: Re: Male bashing in other newsgroups
Keywords: rec.arts.tv.soaps, male bashing
Organization: Monash University, Melbourne, AUSTRALIA
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 01:57:00 GMT

In a previous article colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) passed on an article containing:
>
>13.  Reasons to give Flowers
I can't think of any reason to give flowers to a woman who has attitudes
as expressed in this "humour"..

>14.  How to stay awake after sex
Why stay awake if the woman next to you is snoring her head off? 

>15.  Why it is Unacceptable to relieve yourself anywhere but the Washroom
I use a toilet actually, but a tree will do when desperate.

>19.  How to put the toilet lid down (formerly called "No, It's Not A Bidet")
Are women incapably of performing such a BASIC chore?

>24.  Romanticism - Other Ideas Besides Sex
Let's concentrate on the woman's needs, and forget about the men's...

>30.  Fluffing the Blankets after Releasing Gas is NOT Necessary
Unless the gas escaped from the woman; then it is vital to get rid of it before
the man suffocates.

>32.  Honest, You Don't Look Like Mel Gibson - Especially When Naked
That's OK, Elle McPherson looks great in my dreams....

Steve
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic)
Subject: Re: Bashers
Organization: TRW Financial Systems
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 18:52:56 GMT

rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:
>
>  Most women I've talked to argue for fair(er) pay and limits on men's
>ability to harm them. In and of themselves, these seem reasonable
>requests. But, the basic assumptions are not being challenged. Are men
>really rhe threat they've been made out to be? Are men really that much more
>highly paid for the same quality of work for the same time? Feminists,
>like the inquisitors, cannot endure to have the basic assumptions examined
>too closely. 
>
>  The point is that what wmen say they want is more than likely a product of
>desires and hates which have been sold to them right alongside the hair color
>and designer jeans. 
>

maybe when women are earning $1.00 to men's $1.00, they won't feel so much
need to use cosmetics - by that time the species will have lost its hair. :)
men wear designer jeans too, you know. that's an excuse to charge twice as
much, and so you know it will be made commercially desirable for men, it has.

I don't know any rapists or men who've used force on women, but the
statistics say they're out there. Same for child abuse. Hell, alcoholics.

You seem to resent something, the things you argue are fairly well
established so something else is bothering you?
From: david@marie.stat.uga.edu (David Gundlach)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Birth control failures
Summary: why vasectomy?
Date: 10 Sep 92 21:36:35 GMT
Article-I.D.: athena.1992Sep10.213635.12126
Organization: University of Georgia Statistics Department

And then in <716147848@lear.cs.duke.edu>, gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) said...
% 
% Anyway, all of that *assumes* that the condoms are of top quality,
% an assumption which is not always true.  From CR:
% #The two condoms in the worst group - LifeStyles Extra Strength with
% #Nonoxynol-9 (a spermicide) and LifeStyles Nude Plus - flunked [the
% #airbrust test], with more than 10 percent projected failures.  In
% #some lots, up to half the tested samples failed.
% 
% Hillel                                             gazit@cs.duke.edu
% 
% It's not the break in the condom, it's the man's own stupidity.  If he's
% so worried, let him get a vasectomy.  If he's willing to take the risk
And if she's so worried, she can just get her tubes tied, right?

% of condoms, read CR to find out which ones are less likely to break.
This is a wise choice for all involved.

% Why should a woman have to go through one of two dangerous procedures
% (abortion and pregnancy) because of a *man's* lie or a "break in condom"?  
I missed the part where the man lied, so I'm a little confused...  And
nobody is saying that the woman has to go through either of these
procedures just because of a break in the condom; if both partners are
fertile and she does get pregnant, then it's past time for the two of them
to decide *something*.  *Any* contraceptive device or procedure, short
of complete removal of the organs in question, can fail; the
responsible couple (or people) may or may not quake in fear at the very
thought, but certainly plans for that event.

%                                          --  Muffy Barkocy 

Take it easy there, Muffy; you're usually one of the more rational
ones out there!


:-D
--
David Gundlach				david@marie.stat.uga.edu
System Support and Integration		david@rolf.stat.uga.edu
UGA Statistics				david@castor.cs.uga.edu
University of Georgia			david@groucho.dev.uga.edu
706/542-3289 or 706/542-5232		BITNET: statuga@uga

"I think, therefore I am wrong." -- 	me
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic)
Subject: Re: Liberation vs. Population ==> more sex
Organization: TFS
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 13:37:48 GMT

Simple answer I make is I contribute to the statistics (in what I do);
I haven't bothered to read studies about it - I enjoy sex, if it's
available I'll consume it. I offer that my attitude is native to me,
I would enjoy and desire sex regardless. I can't guess why sex might
be becoming more available to me, but my 'proponency' is based on
whether I think it's a good thing or not. If there are 255,000,000
people in this country, you could've fooled me. I only see about 1,000
of them on any given day. I can't prove or disprove population pressure;
except to suggest that 'density' may contribute to availability. If the
first female I encounter lives 20 miles away, that's difficult; if she
lives in the apartment next door, that's easy. If I'm looking for a certain
SORT of person, I'm more likely to find one of that type in San Francisco
than in Buzzsaw, Montana (pop 200.) This answers you little . . . sorry.
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: chapin@cbnewsc.cb.att.com ( Tom Chapin )
Subject: Re: Adults, Children and sex
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 18:03:22 GMT

Dan O'Connell writes:
>Mr. Chapin can rest assured I will not bother him any
>longer with my views on the subject.

Too bad.  Unlike Rich Soyack, who had little to offer the discussion
except insinuations that no one could disagree with him without
supporting child molestation, you at least had a few reasonable
questions--though you too, unfortunately, chose to resort to the
same sort of insinuations recently, which made it difficult to engage
in any real issues.  That leaves LJF as one of the few who actually
tried to talk about issues without invective.  (I leave myself out
of that category because I chose to fight back, and you realized I
would be able to take you on on your own ground.)

> (Tom Chapin) writes:
> Would you care to specify the age, and give reasons why it is
> "conscionable" to condone sexual relations above that age, yet
> not below it?  Would you care to define "sexual relations"
>
>As Mr. Soyack succintly points out in a subsequent post:
>     You say that the laws should be
>     changed, so I feel perfectly justified in asking what you have
>     to gain by such a change in the laws.  
> 
>Mr. Chapin...  does not address directly Mr. Soyack's point...

And neither do you address any points , it should be noted.

I asked for a definition of terms as a way to getting to real
issues.  Instead of addressing real issues, you and Rich both
chose instead to address only my defenses against the scapegoating
tactics of Rich and you.  I believe it is because you know you
have no position other than that of failed historical tradition,
which has had no effect in ending child abuse, so you have failed
to present any genuine issues, instead relying only on ad hominum
insinuations.

>and egregious ad hominem attack against Mr. Soyack's alleged
>past behavior.

It is not abuse to call a rapist a rapist.  It is equally not
abusive to call an emotional abuser an emotional abuser.  Trying
to use scapegoating innuendos is unacceptable, and calling him or you
on it is not an ad hominum.  I did not base my assessments on alleged
motives, but on actual words and actions visible to all.

>Mr. Chapin undoubtedly feels (perhaps correctly) that as
>long as he keeps talking, he will eventually prevail even if
>he isn't actually engaging in the debate.

I found out when I was six that if I ran from a bully, he would
continue to chase me every time I went by, but if I turned back and
confronted him, he would be the one to run home to mommy, whining and
complaining.  I would welcome real discourse, but I will not
tolerate innuendos masquerading as discussion.

-- 
	     tom chapin                tjc@hrcce.att.com
From: fedrick@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Kelvin W. Fedrick)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re:  Impact of the absent father
Date: 9 Sep 92 18:39:19 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

In article <716059279@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>
>2) Women have several very safe (99%) birth control methods, such
>   as the Pill, Norplant and the diaphragm.  Still, quite a few 
>   people (I included) are pro-choice for women even if she has 
>   never used birth control and she had 15 abortions before.

    Ah, last I heard, the diaphragm was statistically much worse than
    condom, around 75% or something.

-kelvin
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
From: hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress)
Subject: Re: K-Mark Hostages
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 22:38:35 GMT

rivero@mdcbbs.com writes
>  In case after case, men have been relegated to the status of "walking cash
>machine" and denied access to their families by women who feel totally
>justified in the "by any means possible" mentality. These men have been
>denied access to their families through false sexual allegations and other
>lies tolerated by a public and court system which assumes that men are not
>only inferior parents, but somehow deserving of such treatment as a class.

  AMEN    AMEN
From: chapin@cbnewsc.cb.att.com ( Tom Chapin )
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Remote (Taxpayer) Wallets
Date: 8 Sep 92 14:31:01 GMT

Sue Bishop writes:
>The money is not coming to the woman for her use, it's to help support
>the child.   

If that were true, custodial mothers would have no objection to
accounting for where the money went to.

     "How come you always buy you toys, but you never buy me toys?"
           - young child to newly divorced mother, upon the occasion
	     of the mother driving up in a new Celica shortly after
	     receiving first child support payment

-- 
	     tom chapin                tjc@hrcce.att.com