HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ajg4_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Arthur Gavrin)
Newsgroups: alt.personal,soc.women,soc.singles,alt.fan.q
Subject: Re: LOOKING FOR NANCY @ BRANDEIS UNIV. IN WALTHAM, MA.
Date: 12 Apr 92 22:19:44 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1992Apr11.015300.12035@access.digex.com> deja-q@access.digex.com (Lin Yon Q) writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.045351.18869@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mikeey J. Lin) writes:
>in communication between the sexes means chasing after women over the net
>because they are just too thick to understand that if she wanted to talk
>to him, she has the raw talent and ability to use the goddamn telephone
>instead of subjecting a few million people to his drivel.  Give it up
>dweebo and try solving your problems without typing at a computer screen.
>Or are you afraid it might make a difference in your life?

     Your reply is exactly the type of breakdown in communication I was say-
ing existed. If you had read, I assume you can read, my quote, you would
have realized that I was not saying anything about his trying to get in
touch with the woman, just your intolerance to his trying to.  You assumed
that I was also trying to pick up some woman by typing on the net, once
again you are wrong.
     You say that the woman has the talent and ability to call him, perhaps
if she has his phone number.  She may be trying to reach him, but did not
know the best way of trying.  It is strange that his posting caused such a
strong response from you.  Is it pehaps that you are jealous of him for
finding someone he is interested in?  "Misery loves company."  I wouldn't
have wasted my time or tax-payer's money to respond to you from my own 
account, but hey, It's YOUR money anyway, and even though I have the talent
and ability, I lack your phone number (maybe I should call information for the
number for "self-righteous tax payer").

                                                Art
Newsgroups: soc.women,rec.arts.books
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Instant Yuppies (was: Concordia University openly practices sex discrimination
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1992 19:44:31 GMT

In article <10305@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
>Here are some typical quotes from the 400K+ file I've collected
>from soc.motss:

Not one of which proves your assertions about homosexuals generally.
I'm beginning to think you have a cognitive problem.


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,     |"Les vrais paradis sont les paradis
mnemonic@eff.org | qu'on a perdus."
(617) 864-0665   | 
EFF, Cambridge   |          --Marcel Proust
From: gwangung@byron.u.washington.edu (Roger Tang)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Carol Moseley Braun (was Re: Women in Politics)
Date: 15 Apr 92 16:18:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Apr15.161818.932
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <BMqBov.1oy@world.std.com> tparks@world.std.com (terry parks) writes:
>>Certain problems face blacks and women simply because they are
>>black or female.
>Such as? I would really love to see a list of these unique to Blaks
>and unique to women problems.

	Certainly.

	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.

	Another example, there are certain skin conditions that affect
blacks more than whites. Shaving aggravates this condition, causing
infections, rashes, etc. Despite medical evidence of this conditions,
employers do not take this seriously and insist on a shaving policy,
even though this is not particularly healthy for black males.

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

	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.

	Oh, you HAVE heard of the glass ceiling, hm?

	There's more.


>>A race-blind/gender-blind solution won't solve these
>>problems simply BECAUSE they are race/gender blind. 
>These problems must already be solved, unless you really have a list to post.

	That's the problem.  They AREN'T.

>>Going back to Ms. Braun, the unhidden assumption here is that
>>minorities and women are not being heard in the Senate.
>And the factual basis for this is?  Something like, although they get
>all the restricted awards, classes, scholarships, grants, jobs, contracts, these
>people should be getting free daily lunches and preferred airport parking?
>Since EVERYTHING restricted by gender or race goes exclusively to "minorities"
>and women, something is certainly being heard.

	But not heard enough, or you STILL wouldn't have this current evidence
of ongoing, persistent discrimination. Your premise is that there are no
problems for blacks and women.  There is ample evidence that you are
mistaken.

	You can argue that these solutions are not the best possible, but
then the issue then becomes what is most effective.
-- 
	"I got into theatre originally to pick up girls. Unfortunately, all I
found were women..."
e-mail:  gwangung@milton.u.washington.edu
From: matt@physics1.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Petition on Gender Violence
Date: 16 Apr 92 15:55:34 GMT
Article-I.D.: physics1.MATT.92Apr16105534
	<1992Apr15.185349.23588@lmpsbbs.mot.com>
	<1992Apr16.164440.20601@watserv1.waterloo.edu>
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics1.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: lstewart@watserv1.waterloo.edu's message of 16 Apr 92 16:44:40 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.164440.20601@watserv1.waterloo.edu> lstewart@watserv1.waterloo.edu (L. Stewart -- IS      Office 1058) writes:

> >In article <1992Apr13.173624.1@mdcbbs.com> rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:
> >
> >)  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.
> >Ditto.
> and ditto

Since so many men are tripping over each other to agree with this
sentiment, I suppose at least *one* man ought to say that he thinks
it's silly.

I didn't sign the petition in question, because I didn't see it.  If I
do see it, I suppose I probably will sign it---and if I don't, it
certainly won't be because of this non-issue.

Yes, I think that violence against men is a Bad Thing.  (I'm
especially horrified by the terrible violence that black men and boys
have to endure in some large cities.)  I also think that the erosion
of 8th Amendment rights is a Bad Thing, as is inadequate funding of
education, nuclear proliferation, and deforestation.  Opposing a
group that is working to stop violence against women because it
isn't simultaneously working on a different goal is at best foolish,
and at worst the sign of a hidden agenda.

(And yes, I do believe that we are talking about different goals.  Not
all violence is the same: a date rape is different from a drive-by
shooting.  Predatory behavior against women occurs in our society for
specific reasons, and ending it will require actions and societal
changes that recognize its distinct nature.  If we restrict ourselves
to homilies against all violence, we'll never get anywhere.)
--
Matthew Austern              I dreamt I was being followed by a roving band of
(510) 644-2618               of young Republicans, all wearing the same suit,
matt@physics.berkeley.edu    taunting me and shouting, "Politically correct
austern@theorm.lbl.gov       multiculturist scum!"... They were going to make
austern@lbl.bitnet	     me kiss Jesse Helms's picture when I woke up.
Newsgroups: tcd.talk,soc.women,soc.men,talk.rape,talk.abortion,rec.arts.sf.misc
From: mss2@quads.uchicago.edu (Michael S. Schiffer)
Subject: Re: A rather peculiar letter.
Reply-To: mss2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 22:24:17 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.021145.19473@deeptht.santa-cruz.ca.us> rstevew@deeptht.santa-cruz.ca.us (Richard Steven Walz) writes:

>A more likely scenario. RU-486 excedes cocaine in price per weight,
>and no one needs that much so say so long to the embryo. And the
>substance is easily concealed in plastic capsules which are not
>radio-opaque, and are smuggled into this country by businessmen who
>are sympathetic at $1000 a run

Or not so sympathetic.  One of the problems which criminalizing an
activity is that criminals tend to take over the activity.  There is
nothing about gambling or alcohol which makes their purveyors violent--
but gangs which ran illegal gambling rackets and bootleg liquor engaged
in violent territorial conflicts, purveyed adulterated products,
and generally were not likeable characters.  If abortion is made illegal,
there's already an infrastructure in place for the importation and
distribution of illegal pharmaceuticals, and the people involved have
no qualms about drive-by shootings and probably few about diluting
the stuff by half with sugar-- or rat poison.  After all, unlike
addictive drugs, repeat business is going to be relatively rarer and
less frequent (the theoretical _maximum_ per customer would be once
per month, and the average would be less than once per _year_), so
a given pusher is less likely to care whether he loses a "client"
by providing a bad product in some way.  Like one gangster put it,
"every time they pass a law, they make a new business"; which doesn't
mean "Don't pass laws", but it does mean be very sure you've considered
_all_ the consequences.

>"poor". It is funnelled to pay for their abortions. Alternatively,
>some underground labs synthesize it here and disribute it so widely
>that the doctors strike till the supreme court relents and the
>president resigns.

Or alternately declares war on the gangs, with concomitant reductions
in civil liberties.

>Remember, the American reveolution was fought by fewer than 4% of the
>people. All it takes is a dedicated few to turn a society upside down.

True, but the October Revolution in Russia required an even smaller
number.  Revolution can be right, but it can also be disastrous,
and it's imperative that you set the lines you won't cross _before_
you start the fight, because there'll be fanatics in any movement,
and it's too easy for a revolution to be hijacked by its most ruthless
members.

Mike



-- 
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS	"Never let your sense of morality prevent
mss2@midway.uchicago.edu	 you from doing what's right!"
mike.schiffer@um.cc.umich.edu	 --Mayor Salvor Hardin of Terminus
mss2@usite-next.uchicago.edu     Isaac Asimov, _Foundation_
Newsgroups: tcd.talk,soc.women,soc.men,talk.rape,talk.abortion
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: A rather peculiar letter.
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 17:55:51 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.180028.21751@intelhf.hf.intel.com>
hutch@hutch (Stephen Hutchison) writes:
>In article <1992Apr10.185433.14853@midway.uchicago.edu>
>eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>>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.

IMO, absolutely not.

>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.

The protection for non-enumerated rights was meant to Constitutionally
protect rights that were guaranteed by other sources besides the
Constitution (notably English Common Law and State Constitutions),
*not* to let the Supreme Court decide that x is a right.

--
"Duty is what one expects from others."                    - Oscar Wilde

Pro-Choice       Anti-Roe                             - E. Elizabeth Bartley
From: kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Men Are Not Cost Effective
Date: 9 Apr 92 22:30:43 GMT
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada

In <1992Apr9.140321.7862@tc.cornell.edu> shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) writes:

>Let's face it, both men and women are damaged by systemic
>sexism.  We are, however, damaged in different ways.  By coopting
>the language women use to talk about our experiences of sexism,
>you merely look reactionary, insincere, and kind of stupid.

I would attribute this to content, not context.

Ken
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts)
Subject: Re: Petition on Gender Violence
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 14:46:07 GMT

In <1992Apr16.010604.29620@midway.uchicago.edu> gross@befvax.uchicago.edu writes:
>I would sign it because 

>a) it might prevent or limit violence against women, and violence against
>anyone is horrible
>and 

>b) it would eventually benefit males in that certain once institutions
>and practices are place to address violence against women, those same
>institutions and practices can address violence against men, and make
>it easier to do so.

I wouldn't sign it because implicit in its focus on women is the belief that
violence against men is not a problem.  The fact that it chooses to only
protect a small portion of victims of violence tells me how seriously it
takes the problem of violence.

>But in signing it, I would point out that it only address part of the
>problem.  

Violence in our society is a problem.  People who try to divide us, and say
that only a certain group is worthy of help, don't do anything to heal society.
Why not a petition against violence, period.

Ken
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: dirk@iastate.edu (Drik Tengly)
Subject: Re: abortion is a women's issue
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 07:58:48 GMT

In <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!

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

>	Carol
 
'scuse me ? Abortion has nothing to do with men ?
*blink*

  If i remember correctly, it takes a man and a woman to start a pregnancy.
Yes, the woman carries the child, but the man should have , IMHO, some
say in the matter because it is also his cho his child.
 Also, since her decision on whether or not to have an abortion
quite possible could affect just how much money he is taking home 
for the next 18-21 years, I do believe abortion has much to do with men.
 
  
 
-- 
-----
Ask me how ISU is censoring | "I dunno man. She    | I represent no-one
my usenet....               | just bought me a     | but me. Unless you
                            | salad"-Modern Method | pay me.
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall)
Subject: Re: short marriages
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 23:22:50 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.125238.1@mdcbbs.com> rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:
>> In <1992Apr2.200144.16834@adobe.com> kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall) writes:
>> 
>>> Evaluation period?  Why not just live together - or live apart and be engaged
>>> for 5 years?  What if a child is born during this evaluation period?  Divorce
>>> is very hard on children.
>> 
>
>  Evaluations don't work and neither does living together. There is something
>about taking the marital step that changes the dynamics. My ex and I
>lived together for 4 years (waiting on her first divorce) and frankly,
>we had a hell of a good time tooling all over the planet. Byt when we
>got married (same place Elvis did), things changed, then got really
>weird when she got pregnant.
>
>  You pay your nickel (quarter; there's a recession) and you take your
>chances.
>
>  Me, I'm a hopless (or is that hopeful) romantic, and if I'm in a committed
>relationship, I want to be in all the way, with rings, a cake, and horrible
>gifts from the in-laws gathering dust in the closets. (but not for a while)
>
>
>
><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com Homo Cyberneticus-Computational Man  |
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 For me, from what I have seen, the "marital step" can be the step toward
 a feeling of ownership and not having to work at the relationship any more.
 The "marital step" may lead to a feeling that one doesn't have to be on good
 behavior anymore, because the other is now bound to them.  I think that is
 one reason why there are so many divorces.

 Marriage is not a guarantee that the relationship will continue to be 
 nurtured and grow.  Marriage is not a guarantee of love and forever
 togetherness.  

 With my unmarried partner, we are very conscious of our relationship and
 we both continue to nurture it.  It is a very Give-Give type of relationship
 where we do not take each other for granted and we Know that we both Want to
 be together.  We have made a personal commitment which is every bit as strong
 and meaningful as marriage vows.  I agree that this is not for everyone, but

 I wish there was a ritual along with the marriage ceremony to help couples
 realize that the "marital step" is just the FIRST step in building the
 relationship.
   
 Janice Kendall    kendall@adobe.com    ...!{decwrl|sun}!adobe!kendall

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

		- P.J. O'Rourke, former gulf war correspondant, summing
		up what he learned during two years of research on how
		our government functions.


Xref: sparky soc.women:8920 talk.abortion:14999 soc.men:8380
From: kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall)
Newsgroups: soc.women,talk.abortion,soc.men
Subject: Re: pro-choice == pro-(womens' only) choice?
Date: 13 Apr 92 17:01:18 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Adobe

In article <kui9trINNf6g@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com (Dances with Drums) writes:
>In article <1992Apr9.101629.18624@newstand.syr.edu> mprisco@lynx.cat.syr.edu writes:

>>  Abortion is
>>the only way a woman can walk away from a pregnancy.  
>---
>	Hmmm. What happened to giving a baby up for adoption?  Somethat, that
>until recently was also something the man didn't have a say in (in
>an unmarried relationship).

 What if she's not white?  What if there are birth defects?  Adoption is
 not always an answer.  If it was, there would not be a need for foster
 homes, orphanages and institutions which warehouse those with handicaps.

 Giving up the baby for adoption means the woman must be pregnant for
   9 months.  
 This involves 9 months of risk to her health and life.  If you lose your 
   health, nowadays, you face getting priced out of health insurance.  
 This means loss of wages and possibly her job.  How will she buy food, 
   pay rent and bills, take care of other children?  
 This may mean giving birth to a baby with birth defects, because she was unable
   to afford good pre-natal care, which is not adoptable and is quite costly
   (and again, may result in her being priced out of health insurance).
 
 The statement above is correct:  Abortion is the only way a woman can
   avoid the risks of pregnancy.
   
 Janice Kendall

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

		- P.J. O'Rourke, former gulf war correspondant, summing
		up what he learned during two years of research on how
		our government functions.
Xref: sparky soc.women:8860 soc.men:8324 talk.rape:871 talk.abortion:14612
From: mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mikeey J. Lin)
Newsgroups: alt.personal,soc.women,soc.singles,alt.fan.q
Subject: Re: LOOKING FOR NANCY @ BRANDEIS UNIV. IN WALTHAM, MA.
Date: 12 Apr 92 22:05:49 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1992Apr11.014225.11033@access.digex.com> deja-q@access.digex.com (Lin Yon Q) writes:

>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.
>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.

	Oh wowwww!!! Are you implying that I'm not a taxpayer? (you're wrong)
If that is what you're trying to say, are you also trying to say just because
you pay "at least 6 figures worth of taxes per year" you are more important?
Like it or not, everyone is equal in this net. This means my posting is just
as important as yours. What's the matter? Your inflated ego can't take it,
Mr. "I pay at least 6 figures worth of taxes per year". Be constructive.
If you have nothing nice to say to people perhaps sometimes it's better to
keep quiet. (new concept for you?) Think about this and grow up.

							Mikeey

					       University of Rochester 
                                          Vice President of Gymnastics Club

PS I don't have a "little classroom" or a "star trek named IBM AT"
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Florida baby
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com
Date: 6 Apr 92 12:57:56 GMT
Organization: M&E (Division of EDS), Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: lems

In article <641@nazgul.UUCP>, bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright) writes:
> /Exceptions being anencephalic babies born with no cerebrum, literally,
> /no brain, like the one in Florida which died yesterday after Fla. law
> /made the parents wait for it to die instead of harvesting organs.
> /Florida is populated by some really nutty crackers.
> 
> For once, the judiciary did the right thing. They applied the law, and under
> the law the baby clearly was not brain-dead. The law is wrong, however, and
> needs to be changed. It is up to the legislature to change the law, not
> the judiciary.
-- 

  That would be nice, but while the 14th amendmant prohibits discrimination
on the basis of sex, 90% of disputed child custody goes to the mother, not
through legislative process, but a judiciary bias based on thr "Tender Years"
doctrine. Judges, like the res of us, watch TV and are swayed by
media portrayels on the issue of domestc abuse and this can affect their
rulings.





<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com Homo Cyberneticus-Computational Man  |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>