HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Vicious woman bus conduct
X-To: PNCSPPC@CCVAX1.CC.NCSU.ED
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 21:23:00 GMT

PNCSPPC@CCVAX1.CC.NCSU.EDU writes...

PN> [Reuters 8/16/92] SHANGHAI -- A 24-year-old bus passenger, Dong Huibo, died
PN> in the street, after tangling with one of the city's dreaded woman bus
PN> conductors.   His nightmare began inside the bus when the ticketpuncher
PN> snarled an insult about the shape of his backside.   She swore at him,
PN> slapped his face and broke his glasses, made a grab for his testicles, then
PN> stood back and aimed a vicious kick at his private parts.  As he scrambled
PN> out of a window, the driver -also a woman- slammed her foot on the
PN> accelerator pedal and sent him flying. (From: Di Bi Cao)
PN>                         ____  ____  ____  ____

PN> I wonder what he did to provoke this sort of treatment.


I don't mean to sound rude, but is this what you really think of this
situation?

Reverse the genders and make it a situation where two men attack a woman.
Now imagine how much you'd get flamed for asking "What did she do to provoke
this sort of treatment?"

I'm not implying that *you* hold this double standard ; after all, how would
I know, since I have only seen one sentence from you?  But, realise also that
there *is* the double standard that violence against women is *never*
provoked or justified, but that violence against men *must* have been
provoked in some fashion, and is therefore justified in some fashion.

This double standard, in particular, has been a *very* nasty nut to crack.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Can you do the Picard Maneuver in a Grand Am?
From: chapin@cbnewsc.cb.att.com ( Tom Chapin )
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Adults, Children and sex
Date: 30 Aug 92 04:24:44 GMT
Organization: AT&T

Rich Soyack writes:
>I talked about not buying what sounded like the NAMBLA party line.

When Joe McCarthy found his lies refuted, he retreated into his
second line of defense, claiming that his opponents were 
"fellow travelers" who followed the "party line" even if they
weren't card-carrying members.  Now we see someone else following
his footsteps.

I grew up with emotional abusers, and recognize their filth only
too well.  I'm calling you on it, Rich.  You are an abuser.  Just
because you may not have committed sexual abuse, you are obviously
not free of the need to commit abuse.  You may be able to manipulate
codependents, but I'm not one anymore .  Your form of abuse is just as
dirty as that of a sexual abuser, and in my personal opinion even
more so since you have chosen a form of abusiveness which our
society and legal system have not yet found an effective means to
combat.  But those of us who have experienced it, and then taken
the years to reflect on what happened to them, know both its power
and the need to confront abusers whenever they show themselves.
You may be able to succeed in abusing or cowing others, but I've
seen too many abusers clothing themselves in self-righteousness
to sit and watch quietly any longer.

Enough of your perverted references to NAMBLA, Rich.  Stop your abuse.

-- 
	     tom chapin                tjc@hrcce.att.com
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.sex,sci.psychology,alt.polyamory,soc.couples
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Subject: Re: Polyamory (was Re: Adults, Children and sex) (LONG)
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 23:39:14 GMT

In article <l6annd_.noring@netcom.com> noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring) writes:
>
>Years ago, most, if not all, psychologists/psychiatrists believed that
>homosexuality was not healthy, i.e., that it reflected some type of
>psychological aberration that required a 'cure'.  Over time this view has
>substantially changed (although I'm sure there are still a few psychologists
>who hold such a view in private). 

   For the record, let it be realized that the concept of homosexuality
being a mental problem or impairment was removed from the American 
Psychology Association's authorized DSM-III documentation through
political pressure, not through conclusive evidence. Whether I agree
with this or not is not my point.
   Political pressure can be applied to any group, but it does not in

steve
-- 
aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
From: arothman@eve.wright.edu (Aric C. Rothman)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Men's Issues Newsbrie
Date: 31 Aug 92 14:55:31 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Wright State University

In article <1992Aug29.160415.2962@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>In article <1992Aug28.170748.18778@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:

>>If she stuck her finger up your rectum, you might have an actual  legal case,
>>but I'd still like to see the conversation with the cop - I'd bet you'd have
>>a *whole lot* of difficulty getting that case prosecuted.  And if you did
>>get it prosecuted, why, I'd bet it was thrown out of court.
>>
>>So, yes, the law is sexixst in practice regardless of whether it may or may
>>not be theoretically gender neutral (I don't think it is even close, BTW).
>
>I agree that rape of men is particularly difficult to prosecute.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ <-WOW
>However, I think it would be equally difficult for a woman, if she
>agreed to consensual vaginal intercourse and then her male partner
>stuck his fingers up her anus without her consent, to find the police
>willing to listen to her.
>

But all she would have to do is say is, "I was raped!  Not only did that
bastard force himself inside of me, but he stuck his finger in my ass!"
You see, whether or not she consented to vaginal intercourse is no
longer the point, these days. 
If she says it was rape, it was rape.  Case closed,
lock the nastymale up.

Aric Rothman
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: chapin@cbnewsc.cb.att.com ( Tom Chapin )
Subject: Re: Adults, Children and sex
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 04:47:22 GMT

Richard Soyack writes:
>I was responding to the echo of the NAMBLA party line that I
>read in what you wrote.  They say, "Children want to have sex
>with adults,"  and "children can say no if they don't."  I
>didn't buy it from them and I don't from you.
>
>I asked Jeff this question, now I'll ask you.
>
>Do you view children as sex objects?

No, I do not.  But when I was an child, I viewed adults as sex objects.

I do not request that you "buy" sex or anything else from me, but I
do request that you cease trying to deny my history.  I was there, 
and you were not.  My desires to have sex with adults did exist and
were frequent.  My few experiences where I was offered sex that I
did not desire, I was always able to say no with no difficulty.

I know nothing about NAMBLA nor their "party line" but I know my
feelings as a child quite well.  And based on what I experienced
as a child, you are coming across as someone who claims that
2 + 2 = 5 because you heard Stalin and Hitler thought it was 4.


-- 
	     tom chapin                tjc@hrcce.att.com
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Men's Issues Newsbrief
Organization: My opinions only
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 23:37:52 GMT

In article <10478@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> stricher@masig.fsu.edu
(Char Aznabul) writes:
>Seth Breidbart writes
>
>+ All of the women I've dated have fingers, toes, tongues, breasts, and
>+ other appendages capable of penetrating my mouth.  YMMV
>
>Do you know any cops personally? As an experiment, see what their
>reaction is to "I was raped by a woman!".
>
>I betcha they'll say: What? You were raped by a WHAT? *snicker*

They probably will.  What does that have to do with anything?

My post was in response to one that claimed that, because a court
ruled that undesired penetration was rape, only men could be guilty of
rape under the law.

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
From: chapin@cbnewsc.cb.att.com ( Tom Chapin )
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Adults, Children and sex
Date: 30 Aug 92 04:33:44 GMT
Organization: AT&T

Rich Soyack writes:
>And Jeff somewhere you will have to disprove this idea of you
>as a horny guy hanging around school yards

You are perpetrating abuse, Rich.  Stop.  You are showing yourself
to be as sick as those who hurt you or those close to you.  But you
have the chance to heal, rather than perpetuate the cycle.  Limiting
yourself to forms of abuse which are legal is NOT the way to do it.

-- 
	     tom chapin                tjc@hrcce.att.com
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Abandoment is not same as Adoption
Organization: Who, me???
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 23:39:05 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.131221.12296@meaddata.com> king@meaddata.com (Mike King) writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.072005.6256@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>, noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
>
>|> But your point, as I understand it, is that fathers, who mistakenly
>|> impregnate a woman with a child that they did not want, should be
>|> forced to pay for that child to emanciapation.  Why does that strike a
>|> strange chord with me?  A mother can opt to become a "voluntarily
>|> absent parent" and get both her and the biological father off the hook,
>|> but a father has no such choice.  That's not equality - it's indentured
>|> servitude for the father when he makes one single mistake.
>
>I'll agree, there is no equality.  What can I say...sometimes life
>sucks.  

Gee, isn't it so easy and convenient to say "life sucks" when you're an
apologist for the status quo, huh? Can we expect the same Stoic acceptance
if and when the paternity child-support statutes are reformed or repealed,
Mike, or might you just flip-flop into a wild-eyed reformer?

>But once the child is there it has to be taken care of.

What child? You mean all those hypothetical children that the state is
ENCOURAGING women to bring to term into broken homes and poverty? Do you
think mere *MONEY* makes up for that kind of misery and suffering, Mike?
You must really -despise- children to wish such lives on them.

								- Kevin
From: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Men's Issues Newsbrie
Date: 31 Aug 92 20:22:13 GMT
Reply-To: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Distribution: na
Organization: Florida State University, but I don't speak for them

In article <1992Aug31.155554.14514@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
>I was thinking about this some more, and I realized it needed to be
>expanded some.  Penetration of the mouth or anus with a *penis*, rather
>than a finger, would very likely fall into the 'practical' range of 
>the 'penetration' definiton of rape (IMO).

Florida has "sexual battery" statutes similar to the ones being discussed here.
("Rape" is not a legal entity.)  One of the more notorious sexual battery 
cases at Florida State University involved a woman whose vagina was penetrated
using a pump-style toothpaste container while she was blacked out from
overcomsumption of alcohol.  There were convictions.

This is not to say that I have faith that there would be a conviction were the 
sexes reversed, of course.

-EMP
From: chapin@cbnewsc.cb.att.com ( Tom Chapin )
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Adults, Children and sex
Date: 30 Aug 92 15:25:13 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnewsc.1992Aug30.152513.13538
Organization: AT&T

Rich Soyack writes:
>			I questioned your motives in arguing that
>line of your's and you accuse me of being an abuser.  You now
>say you were abused, but previously you painted yourself as
>being so strong as a child that you could handle the excesses
>of authority?

An abuser does not cease to be an abuser merely because they chose
to attack a victim strong enough to fight them off.  An abuser
stops being an abuser by ceasing to perpetrate attacks.

Regarding the few arguments you tried to make:

You did not "question my motives," but rather tried as strenuously
as possible to attribute false motives to me and to others.

I did not say I had handled "the excesses of authority," but rather
that in the situations I was involved in, I realized I had the
power to call up greater authorities on my behalf if necessary to
protect myself.  Apparently you are trying to insinuate I cannot
handle your "excesses of authority"??  Gee, Rich, I've known
authorities, and you, sir, are no authority.

-- 
	     tom chapin                tjc@hrcce.att.com
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Men's Issues Newsbrief
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 14:45:37 GMT

In article <1992Aug29.040317.18445@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.233752.26373@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
>>My post was in response to one that claimed that, because a court
>>ruled that undesired penetration was rape, only men could be guilty of
>>rape under the law.

...

>Our law makers bought into the propoganda that women are the sole victims
>in this society and that men are the sole perpetrators.  The biases
>present throughout our laws are a reflection of that.

You've hit on something here...  Some political feminists use the 
pragmatic method of describing women as victims in order to pass laws 
protecting and empowering women.  Interestingly, they then turn around
to say that claiming that a woman needs protection is patriarchal,
condescending, and degrading.

Hmm...

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
From: mikep@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Mike Powell)
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 23:35:51 GMT
Subject: Re: "A Feminist" (was Re: Barbara H.)
Organization: HP Santa Rosa Site (NMD MTA MWTD)
Newsgroups: soc.men

	
	Overall, I think the definition is fairly general, but has
	an unmistakable direction....

	Other similar terms exist....

	"liberal", "conservative",  etc.... note that there are no
	strict requirements for people that fall under these labels.

	The same goes with the feminist lable.

	And as with "liberal" and "conservative", one need NOT be
	self-proclaimed to be a feminist....

	-Mike-
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: What is it that the men want?
Date: 28 Aug 92 23:17:15 GMT
Reply-To: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Distribution: na
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <1992Aug28.200615.23173@news.nd.edu> slarsen@beethoven.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:
> What is it that the men want?

	Fast cars and fast women.  Geez, were you like born yesterday
or something? 

	
	:-) :-) :-)

Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support
From: twain@milton.u.washington.edu (Barbara Hlavin)
Subject: Re: Barbara H. Advocates Financial Rape
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 23:03:29 GMT


Re: the contemptible claim you make in your subject line:

This is a lie.  

Barbara Hlavin has never "advocated" any such thing. 



In article <1992Aug31.214526.28552@u.washington.edu> hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress) writes:
>Barbara Hlavin writes
>> Mia Farrow has never asked for a dime in alimony or child support from 
>> anyone she's ever been married to or emotionally involved with, and I 
>> have no reason to believe she wants any form of financial support from
>> Woody Allen. 
>
>  She asked for 7 million from Woody -- as hush money.

This is an unsubstantiated assertion, which she denies. 

Believe whom you please. 


>  Prove to me that Mia`s family has never received
>  child support.  I know that Soon-Li was getting
>  daddies money at age 21.

I'm not going to spend an instant "proving" anything to you, you 
rude person.  For all you know, Andre Previn voluntarily chose to 
contribute to his children's support.


>> (By the way, I find it insensitive . . . that you equate 
>> being pressured to support your child with rape.) 
>
>   I am outrage that you advocate force (rape) as
>   a valid way of accruing child support when
>   their are so many better ways to support
>   the child.

I have never, ever, in my life, advocated, suggested, or supported any 
kind of rape, force or coercion to any end whatsoever, and I resent your 
saying that I have. 

I have never taken a position or made a statement here one way or 
another regarding the issue of child support.  And I don't intend to. 

What I did do was (mildly) demur at your judgment in using the word 
"rape." 

I will tell you this:  I do not permit people to make false claims in 
a public forum about what I have said. 

I don't know what, exactly, you're so hysterical about, but regardless 
of the feelings or the experience that make you act this way, these do 
not give you license to post vicious and irresponsible statements about 
other people. 





Xref: sparky soc.men:15848 soc.women:16072
From: cook@dollar.crd.ge.com (Cathi Cook)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: "A Feminist" (was Re: Barbara H.)
Date: 2 Sep 92 22:32:01 GMT
Reply-To: cook@dollar.crd.ge.com (Cathi Cook)
Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center

In article <1992Sep1.153732.1@mdcbbs.com>, rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:

|>  I had a debate with a feminist ovr the weekend about the possability
|>that Mia had made up the charges about Woody abusing the 6 and 7 year olds
|>specifically to extort money. Her response was that she hoped Mia's
|>charges WERE true so that Woody would "get what he deserves" for the
|>Soon Yi affair.

I need to ask a question I've long been curious about.

Over and over and over again on the net, I've encountered the phrase
"a feminist".  As in "A feminist told me I couldn't be a feminist 
because I'm a man."  "A feminist told me there's no parallel between
abortion rights and child support."  "I know a feminist who wouldn't
shave her legs to save her life."

Just HOW are you guys defining "a feminist"?

Is it synonymous with "female"?  Does the woman have to have been
involved with women's rights, or does she just have to have picked
up a copy of Ms. once?  Can the woman be married with three kids
and still be a feminist, or does that rule out feminism for you guys
by definition?

It seems that an awful damn lot of the time here, "a feminist" is
defined as "a woman who says something I don't like".  Over and
over I see these anonymous "a feminist"s taking positions that all
the feminists _I_ know wouldn't consider reasonable even if they
had just had a fifth of tequila.  There seems to be this sense that
if the poster just CALLS the woman a feminist, his/her little anecdote
can serve to immediately define the "real" feminist position on
anything. 

I've seen this tactic on talk.abortion a lot.  "You think abortion is
about women's rights?  Look, here's an abortionist who BEAT HIS WIFE!"
Like, so what?  So there are loony wife-beating abortionists out there.
So there are child-molesting priests.

So there are women spouting nonsense about the Woody Allen affair.

The question here is, "What's the point?"  Rivero apparently knows
a woman who has a bad attitude and isn't afraid to show it.  Does 
this really SAY anything?  Wishing that children had been abused 
for ANY reason immediately disqualifies that person from being
considered rational in my mind.

|>  Look, I agree that there's some question of taste in the relationship with
|>the 21 year old, but to actually HOPE two small children were really sexually
|>molested so that Woody gets his comeuppance???????????  This is not a woman
|>I would want raising MY kids!

And again, does this really say anything other than as an implication
that feminist = bad?  Is the woman in question your ex-wife?  If not,
is there REALLY any danger whatsoever that this woman might end up
raising your kids?  Or was it just a way of saying in code "I wouldn't
want 'a feminist' raising my kids."?

|>|  Michael Rivero

                         -rocker
Xref: sparky soc.men:15622 soc.women:15911 alt.child-support:2965
From: hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support
Subject: Break-ups
Date: 28 Aug 92 20:43:54 GMT
Organization: University of Washington

Alan Yasutovich writes
> I always believed that, for some reason
> I can't fully explain, marriages broke up some
> time around the birth of a child.

   Woody Allen started his affair with
   Soon-Li(?) less than a month after he
   adopted 2 of Mia's kids.

   People hate enslavement.
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: honna@cs.concordia.ca (SEGEL honna)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Feminists ignore Cosmetics?
Date: 31 Aug 92 15:51:43 GMT
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: Computer Science, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec

In article <1992Aug26.185005.29368@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> crussel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Carol A Russell) writes:
>As a feminist I don't see what is wrong with decorating our bodies or our faces
>in order to have fun, as part of a ritual, to improve our appearance, or 

Appearance?  To whom?  There is nothing outside your head.(or whatever)  

>when we feel we *have* to look a certain way, or cover up our imperfections, in
>order to please *someone else*.  And in our Western society we consider it
>oppression for women to have to cover their faces and bodies because their
>Eastern, male-dominated society deems those bodily parts to be unclean, or
>unfit for looking at in public.
>
>I've read Naomi Wolfe, and don't see how a woman who believes what she does 
>would use cosmetics or jewelry as anything but something *she* enjoys. 

I doubt that it is possible to disentangle the facts of jewelry and cosmetics
from the current state of the world and even *suggest* that anyone's
*enjoyment* of these things is not intractably linked with the perception
of self by others - and by extension, the assessment/judgement/appraisal of
self by those same others.  It seems to me self-deception to wear the 
mantle of *enjoyment* in re: jewelry and cosmetics - Can You see the earrings
that you are wearing?  Can you see your necklace?  Can you see the visual
effect of make-up on your own face in a more-or-less typical (social) setting?
Can you see the effect of that scarf on your face?  

And as for ritual - there is nothing necessary about jewelry, cosmetics, or
anything else when it comes to ritual.  It seems to me that "to have fun"
and "as part of a ritual" are thin excuses for justifying behaviours so 
deeply imprinted on a women's self-concept that to do without these things
is too frightening a prospect or too taxing for the imagination.

>if she decorates herself for anyone but herself
she is probably self-deluded - and I mean that.  The nature of decoration is 
that it is visible.  We don't live - literally, anyway - in a house of mirrors.



HS/ Michael



-- 
***************************************************************
honna segel
department of computer science
concordia university  *****************************************
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: The poor duchess
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 15:52:12 GMT

In article <3540@unisql.UUCP> wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie) writes:
)In article <1992Aug26.162424.645@cs.mcgill.ca> samurai@uriel.cs.mgill.ca writes:
)>Because she's the Duchess of York.
)
)	Well, maybe I'm missing something but don't Duchesses have the right
)to dress as they please?  I always thought royalty was *more* privileged
)than us mere commoners...
)

Nope.


Xref: sparky soc.men:15834 soc.women:16059 alt.feminism:414