HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Equal rights under the law (Re: Suppose pornography DOES encourage violence?)
Date: 14 Apr 92 21:09:30 GMT
Article-I.D.: m.1992Apr14.210930.23832
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL

russ@alliant.com (Russell McFatter) writes:

[...]
>To clear up any potential confusion, the bill does NOT ban "pornographic
>materials".  What it DOES do is permit any woman (yes, "woman"-- more
>discriminatory legislation here) who claims to have been harmed in any
>way as an indirect result of any kind of pornography to sue the STORE
>that sells it.
[...]

Well I guess I don't need to worry about such a law in Illinois. Here
we have equal rights for women and men are part of the state
consititution. (Sadly and ironically, we are also the home of Phyllis
Shaffly (sp?) and one of the states that de-ratified the national
ERA.)

If I lived in a state that didn't have equal rights under the law, I'd
worry more about that than curbing mastributation material.

- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Xref: sparky soc.women:8918 rec.arts.books:7932 soc.history:3588 soc.culture.jewish:7940
From: bev@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu (Beverly Huntsberger)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: good books for young people on sex
Date: 6 Apr 92 16:26:49 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Univ. of South Carolina, Columbia

In <1992Mar31.230311.25078@adobe.com> kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall) writes:

> Two good books I know of:

>	 Boys and Sex
>	 Girls and Sex
>		by Wardell Pomeroy, Ph.D.
...
	<good description deleted>

	I appreciate this thread and the variety of
	resources which have been provided in reply.
	I need to comment on the following idea:

> what he tells boys about girls
> and the differences:  "Boys use love to get sex;
> girls use sex to get love."

	This old cliche needs to be closely examined
	and carefully discussed when being given to
	children, if the children are ever going to
	be taught to enjoy their freedoms. I don't
	mean to imply that it doesn't contain truth.

	Unfortunately, it may still be as true as it
	ever was (at least for children). Nevertheless,
	it doesn't need to be this way. This (Mostly)
	learned attitude about gender scripts can be
	seen for what it is if we are willing to take
	responsibility for the kind of society we want.
	
	IMO, that would be a society which allows both
	girls and boys to experience the full, human
	(natural) range of feelings and thoughts,
	and to express themselves honestly.

	I suppose the trick with teaching is being able
	to describe the realities and the ambiguities
	in those realities, without trying to pretend
	that we have all the answers. By the time a child
	is eleven, they've either learned to trust you
	or not trust you. At that point, it can be quite
	helpful to admit that the way we've done things
	wasn't so hot, even if it was the best we could.

	Children can go a long way toward loosening
	up the gender roles of the future, but they
	are going to follow our lead to a great extent.

Bev

> Janice Kendall

>        "Giving power and money to the government is like giving 
>         whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."  

	It is,  IN FACT, currently the same thing.
-- 
-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Just read his lips:
Now, he wants us to believe in the "tooth fairy".
-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: abortion is a women's issue
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 22:49:26 GMT

kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts) writes:
>On the other hand, I subscribe to this newsgroup to talk about women.  Women
>are free, and encouraged, to join in this discussion.  If you want to talk to
>women about women subscribe to the FEMAIL mailing list.

Way to go, Ken!!  So, let's talk about women.  You like or dislike
them, love or hate them?  (Women, bless 'em, can't live with them,
can't live without them.)  You have a preference for color, size,
shape, age?

Oh, you meant women's issues.  Never mind.

Xref: sparky soc.women:8762 soc.men:8198 alt.activism:7407 talk.politics.misc:17426
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: What I Did at the Rally (Washington, 4/5)
Date: 8 Apr 92 16:14:30 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

Some of you may be amused by a report of the pro-choice
rally in Washington last Sunday which I've posted in
soc.feminism.  If you can't get soc.feminism, your site
is being oppressed.  Write to me and I'll send you a copy.

-- 
* Gordon Fitch    |    gcf@panix.com
From: rpetsche@mrg.tmc.edu (Rolfe G. Petschek)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Male Bashing and Abortion
Date: 17 Apr 92 12:11:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: usenet.1992Apr17.121110.2789
Reply-To: rpetsche@mrg.CWRU.EDU (Rolfe G. Petschek)
Organization: CWRU Physics Department

In article <1992Apr16.174500.2392@ducvax.auburn.edu> kenneth@ducvax.auburn.edu writes:
>In article <1992Apr16.161258.19558@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>, btwomey@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (william.tw0mey) writes:
>> In article <1992Apr16.053003.2372@ducvax.auburn.edu> kenneth@ducvax.auburn.edu writes:
>> ...
>>>I must've missed something.  Women can get pregnant without a donation from
>>>a male?  Ah! I see my "Spore Theory" is still intact! :)
>>    ^^^^
>> Last I heard, humans were not fertile with other species.
>> So in this case, you have to drop the politically correct term,
>> go for accuracy (shudder), and use the evil word, "man". 
>> Although "boys" can donate as well.

>Sorry about that, Bill.  I thought people were intelligent enough to 
>realize I was talking about a HUMAN male.  Apparently not.

Well, actually this statement was correct as originally made with the
most dubious word being "donation":

No woman can become pregnant without a donation from a male.

Certain non-human females (e.g. aphids which in good times are
parthenogenic and are actually born pregnant) can become pregnant in the
absence of males thus the statement with females replacing women is, in
fact inaccurate.  Actually this is not unimaginable for female humans too
but, to the very best of my knowledge has never been documented, though
I believe it has been observed/induced in certain lower animals (?the
frog Xenopus?).  While a female human will not become pregnant through
contact with the sperm of a male Xenopus this does not contradict the
statement that contact with a male is required.  Similarly many (1 in
twenty or so) males of the appropriate age are infertile with all
females (in the absence of medical treatment).  I suppose, however,
that this contact need not necessarily be voluntary, hence "donation"
which implies a voluntary gift is logically inaccurate.

"No female human can become pregnant without viable sperm from a fertile 
human male or a fertilized egg (in the case of in vitro fertilization)."

has a certain "ring", yes?

The problem with "men" is that, depending on context it can include
"women" (according to general practise).  Thus the suggestion that men
be used, to exclude non-human males is as accurate/inaccurate as the use
of males to exclude non-female humans.
--
Rolfe G. Petschek			Petschek@cwru.bitnet
Associate Professor of Physics		rgp@po.cwru.edu
Case Western Reserve University		(216)368-4035 
Cleveland Oh 44106-7079
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: dmcanzi@watserv1.waterloo.edu (David Canzi)
Subject: Re: Men Are Not Cost Effective
Organization: Effete Corps of Impudent Snobs
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 21:30:16 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.064447.291552@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>In article <12026@tamsun.tamu.edu> cnh5730@maraba.tamu.edu (Charles Herrick) writes:
>#Therefore you'd better get up and rebuke your bigotted sisters or you WILL  
>#be held responsible for them.
>
>I don't hold all men responsible for the trash that you produce,
>Charles Herrick.  I only hold you responsible.  Would you like
>to look up bigot in a dictionary, for once?

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.

Charles is, in this case, only giving back to feminists what they've
given to him.

-- 
David Canzi
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Women
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com
Date: 13 Apr 92 14:25:31 GMT
Organization: M&E (Division of EDS), Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: rivero

In article <1992Apr10.043120.4192@gn.ecn.purdue.edu>, lavellin@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Joseph Lavelline) writes:
> 
> Some girls like to buy new shoes and others like driving trucks and 
> wearing tatoos.
-- 

  And some like to broadcast news, while others enjoy singing
the "blues".

  Still others like to paint in hues, while still others pound
gavels and collect the dues!



(Your turn !)


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  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: jjj@mits.mdata.fi (Joni Jarvenkyla)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Request : Dating advice from women
Date: 16 Apr 92 08:45:19 GMT
Organization: The Church of Missing Perfect Parts

In article <1992Apr3.070018.13380@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> tlode@isis.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
>Women--be more aggressive!  Please!

Once I knew a girl
I kinda liked her
until "The Shining"
and "Easy Rider"
arrived

Hey, must see those!
Which one
would you like?
"Same to me, doesn't matter"

I saw the movies
passionately alone
knew my road

She was
several galaxies

From me.
-- 
jjj@mits.mdata.fi   Mind         Heart         No      Me
jjj@niksula.hut.fi  Difference   Destruction   Death   You
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Subject: Re: Florida baby
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 02:11:11 GMT

hough@seismo.gps.caltech.edu (Susan Hough) writes:

>>/Exceptions being anencephalic babies born with no cerebrum, literally,

>What I wonder in this case is this:  why on earth did the hospital
>hook the baby up to life-support equipment?  My guess is that in many
>if not most of these cases, "heroic" life-sustaining intervention is
>simply not attempted and the babies are allowed to die quickly.  

>Sue

My understanding was that the parents requested that the baby be put
on life-support equipment in order to keep her organs alive, so that
they could be donated to save other lives.

						--  Michal
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,talk.rape
From: schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz)
Subject: Re: more thoughts on a new slant to rape stats
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 06:37:38 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.005847.19505@daffy.cs.wisc.edu> albert@sevenlayer.cs.wisc.edu (Joseph Albert) writes:
>
>I do know of a study (Neil Malamuth, UCLA) which found high positive
>correlations between per capita levels of sales of pornography and 
>rape frequencies.

I think you'll also find that rape correlates highly with necktie
sales and traffic accidents, both of which probably correlate
with pornography consumption.  The real factors here are population
density and proportion of men, both of which are significant
rape predictors.  None of the studies that showed a correlation
between pornography and rape controlled for these factors and
economic status, which also correlates (negatively) with both
reported rape and pornography consumption.

Nor have any of the studies looked at the _ratio_ of sexual violence
to nonsexual violence, except for Berl Kutchinsky's most recent paper
(International Review of Law and Psychology, June 1991).  In it he
compared this ratio before and after the widespread appearance of
hardcore porn in 5 countries (incl. the US).  He found either no
difference or an actual decrease (in Germany, as I recall).   

Correlative studies are of little use without including a large
number of control variables to partial out the main effects.  Even
Donnerstein, who also found a positive correlation between subscription
rates of Playboy and rape, wasn't so naive as to call it causal.

-S. Schultz
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Carol Moseley Braun (was Re: Women in Politics)
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 18:02:19 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.161818.932@u.washington.edu> gwangung@byron.u.washington.edu (Roger Tang) writes:
>	Several studies have shown that blacks face discrimination simply
>because they are blacks. Matched pairs of black and white test participants
>were sent out for job interviews, housing situations, etc.  Results?
>Whites were treated better, blacks were more likely not to get follow up
>interviews/calls, whites got more job offers, etc.

I'd have been much more impressed with this study had they had a control
group of matched pairs of two whites, matched pairs of two blacks, etc.

Richard Epstein does a very good job debunking the Ayres study on 
car sales and the well-publicized 1991 Urban Institute study on job offers
in his new book, _Forbidden Grounds_.

>	As this group shows, which are supported by various studies,
>employers tend to lay off women who take maternity leave.

Do they not tend to lay off men who take off equal amounts of time?
Just ask all of the Reservists who served in the Persian Gulf whether
their old jobs were waiting for them.

>	Various social psychology studies show the result that when men
>and women make the same statement, men are taken more seriously and
>women are judged to be more emotional.

On the other hand, women making the same statement as men are more likely
to be found "competent" or "intelligent."  (Conley, O'Barr & Lind, "The
Power of Language: Presentational Style in the Courtroom," 1978 Duke L J
1375.)  One problem with experiments like these is that it's impossible
to double-blind the experimenters and experimentees.
-- 
Ted Frank          + "If you close your eyes, they all taste the same."
1307 E 60 St, #109 +  			-- General Mills representative
U o' C Law Skool   +  			   responding to complaint about new
Chi, IL 60637      +  			   radiocative-green Froot Loops (tm)
From: MURILLOM@CAEDM.BYU.EDU ("Martin Murillo")
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: A guy wants your advice
Date: 7 Apr 92 04:34:41 GMT


I have a question for you girls:

I just sent some red roses to a person whom I don't know very well,
I just see her sometimes and interchange some words and that's all.
I noticed she was kind of interested in me because her looks and the
questions she asked to me, well, I think she was kind of interested
in me.  Now I don't know what to do, I don't know wether I should
tell her that I was the one that sent the roses or just wait for some
time.

What I want to know is how would you feel if you were in her position.
Notice that this is a question of a shy guy that does this for the
first time; now I don't know what to do.  I like her and I'd like to
begin a relation with her.....what I was trying is to be polite and
I gess impress her.

I'd like to have your opinion....heeeeeeelp!
please send me e-mail to

murillom@caedm.byu.edu
From: kenneth@ducvax.auburn.edu
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Male Bashing and Abortion
Date: 16 Apr 92 10:30:03 GMT

It seems that some women like to "bash" males, and that some women on this
net (a couple of them, anyway, that I've seen post), seem to make a habit out
of excluding men from the choice of Abortion.  I am pro-choice.  I think that
women should have the final decision in questions of abortion w/regards to
their own bodies.  Yet, SOME posters say that men are NOT involved.  

I must've missed something.  Women can get pregnant without a donation from
a male?  Ah! I see my "Spore Theory" is still intact! :)
Get real.  The woman conesnts to sexual activity with a man, except in cases
of rape, and the burden of birth control, falls upon both parties equally.
Some women on this net act like it is the male's fault for all unwanted
pregnancies.  The fact is, if you women don't want to even WORRY about getting
pregnant, then the solution is simple.  DON'T HAVE SEX!  If women
"just say NO" to sex out of wedlock, then there wouldn't be all this uproar
about it.  It seems that it is soooooooo convienient to blame men for women
getting pregnant, rape cases excluded.  Consentual sex is a MUTUAL act.

From what I've seen in a few postings lately, is a crybaby mentality.
From what I've seen, certain women are basically saying, "Oh, I got
pregnant, and I want an abortion, but poor me, I didn't think to use 
anything at the time; isn't that the man's responsibility?"

I realize that is a bit oversimplified, but basically is indicative of some
of the feelings I've seen here.  Grow up.  Sex is something that a man and a
woman (hopefully! :) ) share between each other.  Its something special and
intimate between two people who (again, hopefully) are in love with each
other.  Love is a two-way street.  Each person thinks about the other 
before thinking about oneself.  Therefore, it follows that each participant
would at least consider the possibility of pregnancy and take proper
precautions.  You have to talk about it.  If it is a turn-off to do so,
then talk about it first, and postpone intercourse.

I just fail to see how abortion has ZERO to do with men.  Either that or
someone isn't telling the American peopple something. :)

Ken
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Makeup - a male perspective
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com
Date: 7 Apr 92 10:13:47 GMT
Organization: M&E (Division of EDS), Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: kohlhase

In article <654@nazgul.UUCP>, bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright) writes:
> In article <1992Apr6.132012.1@mdcbbs.com> rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:
> 
> P.S. My own hair is quite short because it's easy to care for that way and
> because I think balding men look pretty stoopid with long, thin hair!
-- 

  NOT!  They don't look stupid (just insecure).  





<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com Homo Cyberneticus-Computational Man  |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|    EARLY RESULTS FROM THE NEW YORK PRIMARY!                            |
|    Clinton                                              17%            |
|    Brown                                                22%            |
|    Elvis in the white jumpsuit                          57%            |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Xref: sparky soc.women:8761 soc.men:8197 talk.rape:846 talk.abortion:14217 rec.arts.sf.misc:1313
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: tcd.talk,soc.women,soc.men,talk.rape,talk.abortion,rec.arts.sf.misc
Subject: Re: a few statistics
Date: 7 Apr 92 00:33:35 GMT
Article-I.D.: coopsol.1992Apr7.003335.20778
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Apr3.114601.10850@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) said:
>eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>] 
>] No.  The *standard* legal definition of life says that anybody with
>] any neural activity in the brain or brain stem is alive.  The law just
>] hasn't caught up with anencephalic babies (aren't any other kind of
>] anencephalitics; they die young) yet.
>
>according to reports on KCBS this is a 1/2000 chance that a
>birth will be anencephalic.

I thought they said it was 2 /1000.


Gordon
-- 

The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: gender "data-hiding" (vs. discrimination)
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com
Date: 13 Apr 92 15:32:41 GMT
Organization: M&E (Division of EDS), Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: rivero

In article <909@armltd.uucp>, hwatters@armltd.uucp (Helen Watters) writes:
> 
> Not all women who are married have children and not all unmarried women don't.
> I have been married 8 years and I haven't yet had kids. I know other
> couples who have married and stayed married because it is nice to be
> with another person.
> 

  It's nice, but if they live here in the United States, it's EXPENSIVE.
The tax rates for a married couple are higher than for two single people
living together filing seperately. In the last year that my ex and
I filed together, the difference amounted to almost $800 more than what
we would have paid if we were not married.

  Needless to say, with a financial DIS-incentive like that, there is plenty
of reason to live together and NOT get married. In fact, given the hassles
inherent in marital breakups, the only reason remamaning to get married
is for the children (which is indeed why I proposed).

  If you're not going to have kids, don't get married! 


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  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: alt.personal,soc.women,soc.singles,alt.fan.q
From: deja-q@access.digex.com (Lin Yon Q)
Subject: Re: LOOKING FOR NANCY @ BRANDEIS UNIV. IN WALTHAM, MA.
Organization: Express Access Public Access UNIX, Greenbelt, Maryland USA
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 01:42:25 GMT

In article <1992Apr5.210233.26542@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mikeey J. Lin) writes:
>>How bloody ROMANTIC can you get!  Get a clue.  She'd call if she was
>>interested.  Don't you read the little "warning" notice that you're
>>costing the net thousands of dollars by posting your dating woes for the
>>rest of the world.  Get a phone book, you idiot!
>
>	Wow! I can't believe this guy "Q" here. This is the third time I  
>get a chance to "respond" to his "comments" here today. HEY DUDE! Hello...
>Is ANYONE home? Do you know anything about sensitivity? Or are you enjoy
>shooting people down? You're complaining about him using up the net money
>by posting his article? You hypocrite! Next time, try giving people more
>constructive criticisms, you'll make more friends that way. By the way, can
>you say "FRIENDS?" (yeah, I know, it's a new vocabulary word)

I, as a taxpayer supporting this institution called the net (and substantially
supporting it as I routinely pay at least 6 figures worth of taxes per year)
do not wish to see this forum become used as a dating service for dweebish
little losers who are trying to pick up women.  I also do not wish to see this
forum used by know nothing little wussies such as yourself who don't have a
clue what the difference between sarcasm and satire is.  So go back to your
little classroom with your star trek named IBM AT running UUPU and get yourself
a life before you start blithering like the idiot you truly are.

>PS Please keep your nasty comments out of BOTH soc.men and soc.women.

I pay for them.  I'll post to them.  As for you, perhaps you can have an
opinion when you stop milking the taxpayers and get yourself a job.

Q



Xref: sparky soc.women:8886 soc.singles:11073 alt.fan.q:403