HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mprisco@lynx.cat.syr.edu ()
Subject: Re: pro-choice == pro-(womens' only) choice?
Organization: Syracuse University
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 10:16:29 EDT

In article <kteqemINN71u@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com (Dances with Drums) writes:
>
>	pro-choice is about having choice *after* conception.
>	Does this apply to men as well?
>
>	Usually, an immediate reply of 'no', it is a woman's body.  Fine.
>But I am talking about child support and a man's wallet.  If a woman
>should have sovereignty over her body, shouldn't a man also have
>sovereignty over his wallet?
>
>	Now I am talking about a fair and equitable timeline -- for example
>if a woman has until the end of the 1st trimester to make up her mind,
>so would the man.  
>
>	I then hear the arguments: well the man made his choice when he slept
>with woman.  He could have used birth control.  Why do these arguments
>not apply to the woman?
>
>	It seems all arguments against pro-choice for men that many of
>these feminists use are the same arguments that they claim don't hold
>water when anti-choicers use them to promote their agenda.
>
>-wat-


I think this is a very valid point.  But maybe we need to look at what
happens when they find a baby in a trash can.  Don't they usually
go looking for the mother?  Do they ever charge a man with the
same kind of crime (I'm not sure what it is, but there seems to
be no pitty for a woman who abandons her baby) if he leaves a
pregnant woman??  After all, he is, in essence, disposing of
the baby as much as some one who leaves it on a door step, in
a garbage can, whatever....  

I know the example is extreme, but I'm trying to make a point.
Culturally and legally (can men get WIC?) women are held 
responsible for their children more so than men.  Abortion is
the only way a woman can walk away from a pregnancy.  It's
too bad that men can't sustain a pregnancy on their own but
that's the real gender difference, isn't it?

--
=====================================================================
=          H A V E   A   D A Y             :|                       =
=====================================================================
Xref: sparky soc.women:8846 soc.men:8290 talk.rape:863 talk.abortion:14486 rec.arts.sf.misc:1340
From: mikeh@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (michael p.herlihy)
Newsgroups: tcd.talk,soc.women,soc.men,talk.rape,talk.abortion,rec.arts.sf.misc
Subject: Re: A rather peculiar letter.
Date: 10 Apr 92 22:33:08 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Apr10.185433.14853@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Apr06.172500.3090@deeptht.santa-cruz.ca.us>
>rstevew@deeptht.santa-cruz.ca.us (Richard Steven Walz) writes:
>
>>I am puzzled by your sig. having pro-choice anti-Roe. These would seem
>>to be opposites in common usage. Please explain.
>
>I'm in favor of a woman having the ability to choose abortion, against
>the idea that this is mandated by the Constitution.
>

What is the consensus on the net for a national abortion law?

I am pro-life but think this issue is tearing the country apart.
I would like to have it settled. I don't think having 50 different
state laws is right.  It just favors those people who have the 
money to travel to a state with more liberal laws.

My idea of a compromise:

	(1) Legal abortion to 14 weeks.
	(2) Legal abortion health of the mother
	(3) Legal abortion rape/incest

I still believe abortion is wrong but legalizing any action
does not make it morally right. It leaves the decision to
the mother.

--
Xref: sparky soc.women:8956 alt.censorship:3310
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Suppose pornography DOES encourage violence?
Keywords: first amendment, KKK, offensive material
Date: 14 Apr 92 21:23:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: m.1992Apr14.212317.17201
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL

pciszek@isis.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek) writes:

>Let us suppose, for a moment, that the claims of some that pornography
>encourages violence towards women is true.

[Points out that KKK is has a Constitutionaly protected right to speak.]

>So why doesn't this same wonderful tolerance extend to pornography?  Is it
>because black men are not considered to be worth as much as white women?

Once you give the government to authority to prohibit anything with a
"bad tendency", you have give it authority to prohibit anything.
Remember speech restrictions go both ways.

For example, last year a woman on Guam, a U.S. territory, was jailed
for violating part of Guam's antiabortion laws for reading from the
abortion section of the Honolulu phonebook.

Also, a state university in Alabama has banned a Gay and Lesbian
student group because of Alabama's antisex laws.

Here is a repost on this topic.

========== ftp.eff.org:pub/law/brandenberg-v-ohio ===============
(My response is based on U.S. law. It is a summary of the ACLU's Bill
of Rights Briefing Paper #10: Freedom of Expression.)

In 1919 the Court said speech that had a 'tendency' to cause a
volation of the law could be punished. This principle was used to
convict a Socialist for mailing antiwar leaflets.

In 1925 the Court established stronger speech protections, stating
that speech could not be punished unless it presented 'a clear a
present danger' of imminent harm. In 1931, this was used to overturn a
conviction based on a California law. That law make it illegal to
publically salute a red flag -- the symbol of (violent) revolution.

In 1950's during the second Red Scare, the Court backtracked saying
that the clear-and-present-danger principle did not apply to speakers
who advocated overthorwing the government, no matter how remote the
danger of such an occurrence might be. (This paved the way for jailing
policitial activists, loyalty oaths, etc).

In the 1969 case of Brandenberg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court struck down
the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan member under a criminal syndicalism
law and established a new standard: Speech may not be suppressed or
punished unless it is intended to produce 'imminent lawless action'
and it is 'likely to produce such action.' Otherwise, the First
Amendment protects even speech that advocates violence. The
Brandenberg test is the law today.
================
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Xref: sparky soc.women:8831 soc.men:8273 alt.activism:7502 talk.politics.misc:17686
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: What I Did at the Rally (Washington, 4/5)
Date: 10 Apr 92 13:20:31 GMT
Followup-To: poster
Organization: The Witherspoon Excludables

In <1992Apr10.025227.4687@anomaly.sbs.com>, mpd@anomaly.sbs.com stated:
>gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>
>>If you can't get soc.feminism, your site
>>is being oppressed.
>
>Or the owner of the system doesn't want to pay for it, in which case
>the readers are free to subscribe to any number of other pay services
>which will happily provide it for a fee.
>--  Michael P. Deignan                      / 

<BAM! BAM!> Order in the court!

Criminal cause for jury trial, People of Usenetia v. Deignan, on a
charge of inability to recognize humorous quips.

Counsel for the government, you may proceed.

	Your Honor, the government moves into evidence the above
	document written by defendant, Government's Exhibit 1.

There being no objection, we'll receive it.

	The government rests, Your Honor.

-- 
			Sold by weight, not by volume.
  Some settling of contents may have occurred during shipment and handling.

	   Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com     ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: feminists are bad in bed (was: Lust, Violence, Pornograpy, and Rape ( was a letter )
Summary: Work first, *then* lust.
Organization: Willy's Pub & Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 04:30:39 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.041839.18610@rice.edu> charity@owlnet.rice.edu (Charity R. Bettoney) writes:
>In article <1992Apr4.043540.13790@access.digex.com> deja-q@access.digex.com (Lin Yon Q) writes:
>
>>Jesus Christ.  What the hell are you trying to prove, responding to pock
>>marked geeks with penny loafers, pocket protectors, and think that taking
>>a shower is sprinkling a little "shower to shower" under their festering
>>armpits.  The closest thing they've ever seen to a woman is the toilet
>>seat that one of those evil feminists (who probably only urinate once every
>>full moon) used last easter.  The same snotty nosed acne faced geekoids that
>>nobody would pick in the volleyball games.  The sniveling, drooling, buck
>>toothed mommy's boys who went to the school dance with their equally
>>sniveling, drooling, buck toothed sister.  
>>
>>GET A CLUE!  Ignore these sexually frustrated imbiciles.  
>>
>>Q
>
>Gosh, Q.  Look at my .sig.  Don't you think I look cute?  I even take regular
>showers.
>
>Charity
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Charity R. Bettoney             ppP8&             (char *)ity
>charity@owlnet.rice.edu        8'^_^`8      (This only looks vaguely
>Rice University               o8\`='/8o     like me, but what the heck.)

Can't argue with the cuteness, I'll admit...but don't expect a warm
reception from Q.  He'll just do something endearing like jump on your
comment and claim you have some sort of cleanliness fetish, or something...

--PL"Free Student A!"H, rousing the rabble and not dumping anything to
ryon1...

-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
  +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 713 776-1541 at home. 713 527-4056 at Willy's Pub.

                        The SubGenius MUST have Slack!
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: carol@ee.uts.edu.au (Carol Gibson)
Subject: Re: Norplant
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney, Australia
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 04:28:08 GMT


Have you heard of Depravaro (D'Pravaro, De Pravaro... not sure..) It's
kind of a 3 monthly hormone injection. A friend of mine's been on it
for about 18 months with no apparent side affects. I'm just sticking to
the pill for now though.

	Carol
From: kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: short marriages
Date: 6 Apr 92 23:07:05 GMT
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada

In <1992Apr6.165926.2923@adobe.com> kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall) writes:

>>Living together is a common-law marriage.  Why be engaged for 5 years with
>>no plan of marrying?  Why have a child when you only plan to be together
>>for a few years?  I know many happy couples who have decided to forego
>>parenthood.

> Living together is common-law in only a few states (California and Texas
> come to mind).

In my province, living together is a common-law marriage.  I am surprised that
it is not also in most states.

>>They're is a difference between establishing a relationship for the
>>companionship, and expecting the companionship to automatically be there.
>>Marrying someone so that you will have a soul-mate is stupid.  Marrying
>                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>someone because they are currently a soul-mate is an option.

> Did I say that?  No.

Sorry, that is not what I meant to imply.  Let me put it '... that we will
have ...'.

>>Yet you seem to be advocating that there exists that one true person who
>>will be right for all time.  This would seem to be a romantic delusion.

> From my experience and what I have seen, this is not a romantic delusion.

From what I have seen, this is not based in reality.  There exists many
couples where it is true, but it is not universal.

> You also have to be open to accepting love - and I would bet that many
> people sabotage good relationships because they don't trust or believe
> that the other person really cares about them (because they don't like
> or care for themself).

I am not debating what it takes to make a good relationship.  I am asserting
that a good life, making rational decisions, does not necessarily mean
a lifetime with one partner.

Ken
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: allender@ils.nwu.edu (Laura Allender)
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Rally
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 14:52:42 GMT

ou812@cbnewse.cb.att.com (Old User) writes:
> I am trying to plow through soc.women to see if there are any articles
> from folks who were at the huge pro-choice rally on April 5.  But I am
> 600 articles from the end, and it's time to log out.  So, here's my own
> message about it - It was great!  Who else from here was there?

I was also there -- it WAS great!  There was a story posted on
soc.feminism under the heading  "o" or "u" or something like that.

> 
> The conservative estimates were half a million, the orgnaizers thought it
> was more like 3/4 to 1 million.  I personally have never seen so many
> humans in my life at one time, so I can't really say.  The Mall was full
> of us.  Some funny signs: "Elvis is Pro-Choice" "Computer Weenies for
> Choice"  Favorite slogan: "Free Barbara Bush" as we went past the White
> House. :-)  George of course was hiding at Camp David during the event.
> 

I agree, my favorite was also "Free Barbara Bush" and also "We want
Bush, NOT" (with a Wayne's World accent)

> Also, a plug for my favorite future U.S. Senator, Carol Moseley Braun.
> She spoke at the rally as did many other political hopefuls. I received
> a mailing from EMILY's List, they are pushing for her in a big way.  
> I am confident of her victory in November.  I campaigned for her in
> the primary and feel especially proud of her victory over Alan Dixon,
> who has been a very nonresponsive senator.  I find it amusing how
> some people are so threatened by the thought of a non-rich non-white 
> non-male person getting into a position of power in our country.  Also,
> believe it or not, some people from Chicago are honest!

I didn't get to hear Carol speak, but I am collecting names for a
mailing list of supporters at Northwestern University. 
If anyone would like to be included please send me an e-mail message.

Thanks, 

Laura Allender
From: albert2@sevenlayer.cs.wisc.edu (Sarah Ullman)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Just testing, please ignore.
Date: 8 Apr 92 00:57:15 GMT
Article-I.D.: spool.1992Apr8.005715.3089
Distribution: wi
Organization: UCLA-Psychology

Just a test, please ignore.
Xref: sparky soc.women:8961 soc.men:8444
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: buying things
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com
Date: 13 Apr 92 14:31:19 GMT
Organization: M&E (Division of EDS), Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: rivero

In article <1992Apr10.025734.8034@by-tor.Gwinnett.COM>, terry-g@by-tor.Gwinnett.COM (Terry Gardner) writes:
> eleanor@ait.com (Eleanor Evans) writes:
> : >should men buy women things more than women should buy men things?
> : 
> : I'd like to buy a man thing--is there like a catalog, or something?  A
> : toll-free number?  Where do I sign up?
> 
> A Radio Shaft catalog should do nicely..


  The SEARS Craftsman Tool Catalog!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com Homo Cyberneticus-Computational Man  |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|    Anyone who manages to get from birth to death without getting at    |
|   least one ugly scar just wasn't DOING anything!                      |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Newsgroups: tcd.talk,soc.women,soc.men,talk.rape,talk.abortion,rec.arts.sf.misc
From: hutch@hutch (Stephen Hutchison)
Subject: Re: A rather peculiar letter.
Organization: Intel Corp., Hillsboro, Oregon
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 18:00:28 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.185433.14853@midway.uchicago.edu>
eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Apr06.172500.3090@deeptht.santa-cruz.ca.us>
>rstevew@deeptht.santa-cruz.ca.us (Richard Steven Walz) writes:
>
>>I am puzzled by your sig. having pro-choice anti-Roe. These would seem
>>to be opposites in common usage. Please explain.
>
>I'm in favor of a woman having the ability to choose abortion, against
>the idea that this is mandated by the Constitution.

Mandated, no, but guaranteed, yes.

According to the bill of rights, its enumeration of guaranteed rights
does not and cannot be seen as precluding or limiting in any way any other
non-enumerated rights.  These are reserved to the states and to the people.

Of course, my online copy of that document has been overzealously cleaned
up and is no longer around.  :-(

Anyway, the Supremes, in their very finite and highly fallible way, seem
to have conveniently overlooked that provision in recent times, by declaring
that since no "right to privacy" or "right to control of ones' own body" are
explicitly written, that no such rights can be guaranteed.

A plague on all their houses.

Hutch
From: gross@befvax.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: Men Are Not Cost Effective
Reply-To: gross@befvax.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago, Dept of Molecular Genetics
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 19:21:32 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.171519.21634@risky.ecs.umass.edu>, shortell@risky.ecs.umass.edu (Laurel L Shortell) writes:
>In article <1992Apr10.213016.6513@watserv1.waterloo.edu> dmcanzi@watserv1.waterloo.edu (David Canzi) writes:
>>
>>Actually, men have been told that it is our duty, when another man
>>makes a sexist joke or remark, to rebuke him.  Ie.  We have been held
>>to blame for the attitudes of other men unless we actively applied peer
>>pressure to influence their attitudes in the "proper" direction.
>>
>
>If you are in a conversation with another man who makes
>sexist or racist or homophobic comments while talking
>to you, then you are implicitly supporting his views
>if you do not call him on it. 
>The same is true for me
>in conversations with people of either gender. You may
>say "Just because I didn't say anything doesn't mean
>I supported his views", but by keeping silent, you are
>telling this person that it is okay to spout these kinds
>of remarks in your presence. You allow him to remain
>comfortable while making oppressive statements and he
>is never forced to consider the appropriateness or
>consequences of his behavior. And for those who do not
>even realize they are doing harm, mentioning that you
>find this beahvior offensive may be the only way such
>people will ever begin to question their own beliefs
>and actions as well as their effect on others.
>
>Something to think about...
>
>Laurel

Laurel,
In your example the person saying the oppressive things is male
(He, him, etc), even though you say you apply the reasoning to anyone.

Do you apply the same reasoning when a womens' group says things
about men?  Have you 'called them on it?'

When I was the only man in a group, the women never 'called'
each other on their comments, only I did, and only after a while,
when the respected me enough not to call me names for 'calling'
them on it.  

They also preferred to meet, sometimes, without me
so they could 'talk freely' without having to worry about what I
thought.  I doubt anyone 'called' each other on the comments about
men then, since the purpose was to be able to speak without being
'called' for it.

And it is for the exact reason that you give above that men (on
net and elsewhere) ask feminists whether they agree with or support
certain views of Dworkin, Brownmiller, MacKinnon, etc., for by not
criticizing them while identifying themselves as feminists, according
to your argument, they are implicitly supporting their views.

All the above applies as well to non-whites talking about whites, and
non-straights talking about straights, etc.

Leon Gross
I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV.
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Petition on Gender Violence
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com
Date: 13 Apr 92 17:36:24 GMT
Organization: M&E (Division of EDS), Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: rivero

In article <1477200003@igc.org>, Human Rights Coordinator <hrcoord@igc.org> writes:
> 
> From: Human Rights Coordinator <hrcoord>
> Subject: Petition on Gender Violence
> From: NREILLY@zodiac.rutgers.edu
> 
>       PETITION TO THE UNITED NATIONS WORLD CONFERENCE ON HUMAN RIGHTS
> 
>         TO RECOGNIZE GENDER VIOLENCE AS A VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
> 
> 
>      Therefore, we, the undersigned call upon the 1993 United Nations World 
> Conference on Human Rights to comprehensively address women's human rights 
> at every level of its proceedings.  We demand that gender violence, a 
> universal phenomenon which takes many forms across culture, race and class, 
> be recognized as a violation of human rights requiring immediate action.
> 
> Signature						Address
> 

  I cannot sign this petition, even though I am opposed to violence against
women, on the grounds that this petition, as written, addresses violence 
against women to the exclusion of violence directed against men.

  This petition violates the 14th amendment of the Constitution of
the United States of America. It is discriminatory, based on gender.
It is sexist.


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com Homo Cyberneticus-Computational Man  |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|    Anyone who manages to get from birth to death without getting at    |
|   least one ugly scar just wasn't DOING anything!                      |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
From: kenneth@ducvax.auburn.edu
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: abortion is a women's issue
Date: 16 Apr 92 05:49:43 GMT

In article <carol.703398081@ee.uts.EDU.AU>, carol@ee.uts.edu.au (Carol Gibson) writes:
> I know this is going to raise hell - but what the hell..
> 
> ABORTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MEN!

It has everything to do with men.  95% of Congress is male.  So is the
Supreme Court.  So is the President.  Congress makes the laws that govern
the country, the Supreme Court interprets those laws.  When women control
the Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Oval Office, it will no longer
be a man's issue.

> I subscribed to this newsgroup because I wanted to discuss opinions
> with women - instead I find a bunch of men discussing abortion...

Plenty of women are on this newsgroup.  So, talk to them.

Ken
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: soc.women,talk.rape,talk.abortion,rec.arts.sf.misc,soc.men
Date: Thu,  9 Apr 1992 23:54:15 -0400 
From: Bradley Evan Stein <bs23+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: A rather peculiar letter.
	<1992Apr06.172500.3090@deeptht.santa-cruz.ca.us>

I can't claim to speak for elizabeth, but I believe I can explain her
.sig.

Essentially, she has stated that she is pro-choice, but feels that Roe
is bad law.

--------------------------------------------------------------
"Anyone that crazy has to be harmless."
   -Tabbi

"You're never too old to rock and roll, if you're too young too die.
   -Ian Anderson
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brad Stein
From: radzy@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Lynne Radzykewycz)
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 19:17:05 GMT
Subject: Re: Looking for advice from women
Organization: the HP Corporate notes server