HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: financial planning and more maternity leave stuff
Date: 7 Apr 92 18:33:43 GMT
Reply-To: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <1992Apr7.133217.25957@news.nd.edu> slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:
>If you feel comfortable in advocating a position that would make 
>employment more difficult for a woman to hold, then I suppose there 
>is nothing I can say to change your mind.

	I feel comfortable advocating a position that doesn't leave me
busting my poor ass keeping you comfortable while you go off and do
what you want.  You can quit your job, take your year off, then go
look for another one, the same as I would if I decided to go work for
Mother Theresa for a year.

	Listen, we *all* want a laid-back 32 hour-a-week job with 4
weeks of paid vacation a year and a sabbatical whenever we need
refreshment.  "I deserve it because I'm a woman" is the purest
bullshit.  It's just as sexist to say "I deserve special care and
treatment no matter what it may cost _you_ because I'm female" as it is
to say "I deserve extra pay and domestic service no matter what it means
to _your_ life because I'm male".

>Leave the baby-making to the women with rich husbands, right?

	Ever hear the one about the ant and the grasshopper?  If you
don't want to work while you raise kids and your family and friends
won't support you then work *really *hard* for a few years and live
off your savings for a while.  

	Hey, here's a real-life example:  My wife and I both work and
are fairly well paid.  When we bought our house we purposely bought one
that we could afford on part of one salary, rather than the biggest nicest
place we could.  That's because we're trying to save money for the future,
and so that if she gets pregnant and doesn't want to work she doesn't have
to, or if *I* don't/can't work it won't kill us.  We're also each adept in
several cottage industries - for instance, Anita is a registered 
massage therapist and can spin and weave - which would help bring in income
during a period of staying-at-home.

	To my way of thinking that's much more *responsible* and more
likely to leave us contented than "Oh, I don't need to worry.  My 
company is mandated by the government to pay me for a year and then give
me my job back with retro-active seniority, raises, and accrued vacation
time.  I *am* a woman, after all".

					"The bottle stands as empty
					 as it was filled before.
					 Time there was a-plenty,
					 but from that cup no more.
					 I would not think to caution all,
					 but still might warn a few:
					 Don't lend your hand to raise no flag
					 atop no Ship of Fools"

Newsgroups: soc.men
From: pprior@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Paul A Prior)
Subject: Re: Men Are Not Cost Effective
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 22:12:21 GMT

In article <abeals.702680331@melange> abeals@autodesk.com (Andrew Scott Beals, KC6SSS) writes:
>
>An authoress who lives in the city of Napa, California.
>An authoress who lives in the Napa Valley [big wine-producing region
>in California].
>Or an authoress who lives in Napa County, California.
             ^^^

Welcome to alt.politics.correct

-- 
--------pprior@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu----(614) 297-8474----------------
Paul A. Prior    Ban anchors, not reef tanks   "With friends like this,   
2nd year medical student		          who needs anemones?"
The Ohio State U. College of Medicine   Tobacco Kills- Please don't smoke!
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct
From: jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer)
Subject: Re: Men Are Not Cost Effective
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 92 17:45:22 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <1992Apr7.111239.29887@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> nathan engle <nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu> writes:
>In article <4591@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> jxxl@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil writes:
>>  A Napa author has filed another salvo in the battle between the sexes,
>
>    This may reveal my ignorance (what, again?), but what is a "Napa
>author"? Is "Napa" an acronym for something? From the context it sounds
>like a radical feminist organization.

Napa is probably referring to the town of Napa, CA which is about 20 
minutes north of San Francisco; either that, or the writer sells auto 
parts!

-- 
John Switzer-Hoek          | "You hear it, you see it, 
(note yuppy hyphenation)   | you want to turn away, but 
74076.1250@Compuserve.com  | you CAN'T! It's Ren and Stimpy!"
jrs@netcom.com             | Happy, Happy, Happy, Joy, Joy, Joy!
From: slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Companies can afford it, right?
Date: 7 Apr 92 16:59:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Apr7.165902.214
Organization: University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame

In article <1992Apr7.153513.18368@tc.cornell.edu> bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.133217.25957@news.nd.edu> slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:
>
>>
>>If you feel comfortable in advocating a position that would make 
>>employment more difficult for a woman to hold, then I suppose there 
>>is nothing I can say to change your mind.
>>
>>
>>Sue Larsen
>>slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu
>
>What makes you think that just because you have a NEED for a comfortable 
>job, than somebody else SHOULD provide it for you, at his expense ?
>
>Dov
>    

Who has claimed that my job is "comfortable?"  It is a job that pays 
the bills, and that is about it.

And I am damned good at what I do, and I was fortunate to have 
employers, when I was pregnant, that DID bend over backwards so 
I could stay home and recuperate from the pregnancy and DID 
recognize that I was a valuable employee and DID feel a moral 
obligation to assist women, and their families,  who needed
their jobs to survive.

Read this:  I am a peon.  I need to work.  Most women I know 
need to work, children or not. I have grown accustomed to food. 

And I am extremely tired of the elitist bull being tossed around 
here that children are the sole province of those who can afford it.
Equating children with cars, boats and other "toys" that people 
purchase. Children are not a commodity, they are a commitment, 
not only to an individual's future, but a family's future, and 
the society's future. But the corporate-speak types here are 
willing to add children to the list of "goodies" that are 
available only to the small portion of the society who are wealthy 
enough to keep an adult home to care for that child.

It is within the corporate interest to minimize family interference 
in their employees.  Well, there seems to be a lot of people 
around here defending the corporate interest by attacking people, 
and not just women, who want to raise a family.

I shall bow out of this conversation now, so shoot away at me 
all you care to.  But my final word is this:  I hope I never have 
the misfortune of working for people as narrow minded, intolerant 
and money-loving as those I have met here.   At least my former
employers-from-hell weren't cold enough to have a policy of 
dumping women from the payroll who had given birth.  Lord help 
the future mothers of America. And Lord help all future employees, 
too.


Sue Larsen
slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu
From: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: SNUFF FILMS sighted in TIME MAGAZINE!!! (Dworkin and MacKinnon, too)
Date: 16 Apr 92 01:13:18 GMT
Reply-To: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Organization: Florida State University, but I don't speak for them

In article <STEINAR.92Apr14194103@otello.solan.unit.no> steinar@otello.solan.unit.no (Cindy Kandolf) writes:
>There is, i think, an obvious difference between soft-core porn, in which
>all parties involved are (or for the sake of the picture pretending to be)
>enjoying themselves, and hard-core porn, where violence is involved and
>not all involved are (seem to be) enjoying themselves.

I strongly disagree.  The difference between soft-core and hard-core porn is
a difference in explicitness.  In soft-core porn, no penetration or oral-
genital contact is shown, and penises are not always erect.  In hard-core 
porn, penetration and oral-genital contact is shown.

Soft-core porn nearly always consists of a series of tableaux, in which 
sexual intercourse of various kinds is simulated or hinted at, or genitalia
are shown with obvious, common, easily understood primate cues.

Most actors in hard-core porn will tell you that there needs to be some sort
of real attraction involved for a scene to work.  Amateur porn, which is nearly
always hard-core, is almost by definition consensual.  

As for soft-core porn and violence, most of the B&D magazines out there are
soft-core, and nearly all of the spanking magazines are.  Spanking magazines
are particularly common in England, which has laws that effectively prohibit
uncensored hard-core porn, at least in magazine form.

-EMP
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Who's Bashing Whom?
Date: 8 Apr 92 19:18:28 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Apr8.140804.6446@tc.fluke.COM> tron@tc.fluke.COM (Peter Barbee) writes: (quoting me)
>>Sally Quinn, in her syndicated article "Is Feminism As We Have Known
>>it Dead?" [San Jose Mercury News, Jan. 26, 1992] paints Steinem as a
>>"backslider" for admitting that she fell in love with a man who
>>treated her badly (a big feminist no-no, but 'the way the world
>>works'). Steinem admits to seducing him by playing down the person
>>she was, and playing up the person she wanted him to be, which
>>is what a feminist is NEVER supposed to do.
>
>Not that I give a big cahoot about who Ms. Steinem does or doesn't
>fall in love with but I always that "playing up the person she wanted him
>to be" was a positive thing to do.  I could rephrase this as treating
>people how you want them to be (eg. trust a person whom you want to be
>trustworthy).  Pretty much golden rule stuff.
>
>Of course the other part ("playing down the person she was") isn't
>real healthy behavior.

I'm sorry, I wrote that incorrectly. It should have read, "playing down the
person she was, and playing up the person HE wanted HER to be." Two
*big* feminist no-nos here: playing the passive, submissive little woman,
and, even worse, loving an abusive man. And this from a feminist
who once confidently proclaimed the beginning of a Brave New Era!

"Do as we PREACH, not as we do!!! Be one of those ever-so-nice guys,
and maybe, just maybe, we might LIKE you! But I can't go out tonight, I'm
putting ice on the black eye my boyfriend gave me. (What a man!)"  :)


-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!

     "In the 1970's the world will undergo famines - hundreds of millions
     of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs 
     embarked upon now ... in 1985, when it is calculated [under the most
     optimistic scenario] that the major die-back will be over, ..."
       
                       Dr. Paul Ehrlich, "The Population Bomb," 1968
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re:Older men and younger women (advice needed)
From: Stafford@vax2.winona.msus.edu (J Stafford)
Date: 8 Apr 92 08:35:04 -0600
Distribution: NA
Organization: msus

Recently, I've heard more references from women regarding the desirability of
older men, specifically men who were active in the sixties!  This may have
something to do with being in an academic environment, perhaps merely a fad.

Regarding advise.  You only live once, so live it honestly, regardless of
peer or social conventions.  What do you feel is right?  Do that.
From: baba@samadhi.Tymnet.COM (Duane Hentrich)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: VMI -=they're BAAACK=- Remember Mills College!!
Date: 10 Apr 92 00:53:26 GMT
Organization: BT North America (Tymnet)

Incidentally, Mills College was back in the, at least local, news in hte last
few weeks. It seems that some of the students have looked around and noticed
that it is awfully white there. Protests and sit-ins aimed at raising the
consciousness of hte administration and students to the specter of
RACISM on capus at Mills College.

African-Americans, Asian-Americans, and other minority women are attempting
to gain access to the whitebread girls club of Mills. I hope they are
more successful than the men were.

-- 
d'baba Duane M. Hentrich	...!hplabs!oliveb!tymix!baba
                                         baba@Tymnet.Com
Warning: Expicit Thoughts
From: stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: A prayer (was: Feminists Growing Old Alone)
Date: 15 Apr 92 17:15:51 GMT
Distribution: na

Robert Sheaffer writes

[about women]

+ Many don't, and never do. My experience is, though, that even the most
+ militant feminists (except for actual lesbians), once you know them
+ well enough for them to say what they really feel, DO want a lifelong
+ marriage to one man (even if they won't *trust* the son-of-a-bitch!).

Dear G_d, YHWH, I AM, etc and so forth

Please strike me dead rather than letting me be married to someone who
doesn't trust me. Thank you.

Sincerely yours,

K'Char
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: ash@sumex-aim.stanford.edu (David Ash)
Subject: Re: financial planning and more maternity leave stuff 
Originator: dash@Xenon.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 22:14:39 GMT

In article <2683@unisql.UUCP> wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie) writes:

>	Listen, we *all* want a laid-back 32 hour-a-week job with 4
>weeks of paid vacation a year and a sabbatical whenever we need
>refreshment.

Wharfie, if this is what you want, why don't you go out and get it?
You said you could be a consultant for half the hours and twice the
pay.  Granted you wouldn't get *paid* vacations, but you could
certainly afford your own sabbaticals at the higher rate of pay, and
consultants certainly are free to take time off every now and then.
Maybe it wouldn't be laid back, but two out of three ain't bad.
-- 
David W. Ash               | "What profits a man if he keeps his eternal soul
ash@sumex-aim.stanford.edu |  when he could have lived life to the full and
HOME: (415) 497-1629       |  been forgiven at the end of it all anyway?"
WORK: (415) 725-3859       |         --David Merritt, a.k.a. THE RED SHARK
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: SNUFF FILMS sighted in TIME MAGAZINE!!! (Dworkin and MacKinnon, too)
From: econrad@cs.wright.edu (Eric van Fossen Conrad)
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 04:07:24 GMT
Organization: Wright State University

In article <1992Apr14.204420.26591@erg.sri.com> rat@erg.sri.com (Ray Trent) writes:
>           What does violence have to do with it? Rambo II showed
>infinitely more death and violence than *any* of the hundreds of
>recent pornographic movies I've seen.

But movies like the Rambo movies don't really count.  After all its
mostly just mere men who get offed.  :-)
                 ^
                 |
                 Uh! sorry about the incorrect terminology.
                 This should read "males".

--eric
-- 
-- Eric Conrad
This space for rent.
From: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Smelling The Roses (was Re: Companies can afford it, right?)
Date: 13 Apr 92 22:41:22 GMT
Article-I.D.: sun13.8202
Reply-To: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Organization: Florida State University, but I don't speak for them

In article <1163@smds.UUCP> rh@smds.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes:
>Ah statistics.  That statistic is true.  However it includes *all*
>startups.

I know someone who worked for a company that made its living by starting
businesses, obtaining venture capital, skimming off a bit, and arranging
for the businesses to go bust.

*All* startups entails a lot of stuff that would make Keating's meagre breast
swell with pride.

-EMP
From: cnh5730@maraba.tamu.edu (Charles Herrick)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: gender "data-hiding" (vs. discrimination)
Date: 10 Apr 92 19:43:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: tamsun.12182

In article <92099.162254JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu> JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu (Joy  
Haftel) writes:
|> >Toss this one over in your mind:  for women to have an equal weight,
|> >status, and opportunity in the world as men, they cannot have  
children.
|> >I think that is the bottom line.  I would be neither emotionally or
|> >physically capable of working at a high-responsibility, high-hours job
|> >if I were pregnant or if I were having a child, and I believe I am
|> >a fairly strong person. 


Absolutely true.


But what's your point? That this is unfair or that women suffer more than  
men because of it? I hope not.

Just don't have kids. If you're going to have kids, give up the idea of a  
demanding, hard-working power-oriented career.

American feminist females need to start learning how to make choices.
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: TRINGHAM@usmv01.usm.uni-muenchen.de (Tringham, Neal)
Subject: Re: Maternity Leave and Child Benefits
Organization: University Observatory Munich, FRG 
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 16:14:00 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <1992Apr7.164425.1611@lmpsbbs.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com writes:

> )
> )In <1992Apr2.222008.6898@lmpsbbs.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com writes:
> )
> )> IMO, what this reflects is that even a small number of people cranking out
> )> 1 child per year can overwhelm any sort of support system, given enough
> )> time.  The keyword is 'exponential growth'.
> )> In article <1992Mar31.175844.21243@news.lrz-muenchen.de> TRINGHAM@usmv01.
     usm.uni-muenchen.de (tr) writes:> 
> )But that doesn't happen. There are lots of places that have systems like this,
> )and (as Celia Winkler pointed out), many of them have population growth
> )rates below replacement. Of the ones that have rates above replacement, 
> )there is no evidence that their populations are growing exponentially. The 
> )usual tendency is for the birth rate to fall. 

> It seems to be happening in third world countries.  

By and large, third world countries don't have the sort of social support
system I assumed we were talking about. Incidentally, I believe the birth
rate is in general dropping in the Third World, which implies that we are
not really seeing exponential growth. It may, of course, be true that
the population will stabilize at some level that is not supportable. 

> One poster points out
> that maybe low (or at least reasonable)  birthrate causes prosperity,
> rather than the prosperity causing the low birth rates.  

Historically in Europe the early industrialized countries had high birth
rates and exponentially increasing prosperity. As the prosperity rose
(though at slower and slower rates), the birth rate began to fall off.
Also, while one can see that comparatively rich, well-educated people
in countries with good health care would not necessarily want lots of
children, there seems no obvious reason why a low birth rate in a 
society with poor health care and a low level of prosperity should cause
an increase in wealth, given the absence of a state-funded social support
system for all the children born. Indeed, one might well expect the
opposite effect. 

> Also, bribing people not to have kids just
> doesn't seem 'right'.  The idea of some minimum level of social support for
> everyone does have some attractions, but I'm really curious as to
> how Sweden makes it work - and has a higher average standard of living
> than the US to boot.  

Well, Sweden is currently experiencing severe economic difficulties due
to the size of its welfare state, as I understand it. But that isn't
true of welfare states in general. 

> [How does Sweden manage this?] A lack of defense and
> 'Foreign Aid' spending?  A less skewed distribution of wealth? 

Low defense spending helps (foreign aid spending is high, I believe), but
I think the crucial factor is `a less skewed distribution of wealth', caused
by a strongly redistributive tax system.

Neal Tringham
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Japanese Women's Lib
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com
Date: 7 Apr 92 09:30:15 GMT
Organization: M&E (Division of EDS), Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: kohlhase

In article <702449518@lear.cs.duke.edu>, gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:
> In article <HaqqiB1w164w@netlink.cts.com> jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
>>How and why do American males feel about the increasing liberation 
>                          ^^^^^
>>of Japanese women?
>              ^^^^^
> 
> Would you mind to repeat the question using non-Politically-Correct terms?
-- 


  You mean, like "japs", "slopes" and "slants", or what?????????????????


:)  :)  :)

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com Homo Cyberneticus-Computational Man  |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|   I have some Oriental blood in me, so no flames.                      |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
From: charleen@ADS.COM (Charleen Bunjiovianna)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Vanilla Sex in Canada (was Re: Japanese Women's Lib)
Date: 15 Apr 92 20:21:30 GMT
Organization: The Original Estrogen-Crazed Lust Bunnies

In article <1992Apr14.222819.27283@unixg.ubc.ca> schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz) writes:
>
>Acknowledging Canada's lust for censorship
>doesn't make me any happier about its ongoing love affair with
>Dworkin.

Odd that Canada would prefer Dworkin, a relatively minor character in
the _Amber_ series.  You'd think it would have liked Corwin or Merlin
better.

Oh, you were talking about Andrea "Doria" Dworkin.  Oops.

Charleen

--
Mankind will probably survive - even if it doesn't take my advice.
                                    -- John McCarthy
From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: The Gender Lie
Date: 16 Apr 92 15:18:03 GMT
Article-I.D.: netlink.soXBJB2w164w
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

Peter Barbee writes:
>In article <L7RViB1w164w@netlink.cts.com> jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery) 
writes:
>>The following view of behavior is having a profound impact on society:
>> 
>>* For the most part, gender differences are acquired during development.
>> 
>>* For the most part, homosexuality is congenital.
>> 
>>The conclusion:
>> 
>>On practical as well as theoretic grounds, the evolutionarily
>>inconsistent view of gender and orientation is profoundly destructive
>>and should be abandoned.
>
>Your observations are, for the most part, inarguable.  The problem with
>your reasoning is that you have not shown any causative relationship
>between these "inconsistent views" and your observations.  I would, in
>fact, argue that society adopting these views is another symptom and
>not a cause.
 
It's true that merely showing a correlation doesn't show cause and
effect.  However, politically opposing the evolutionarily inconsistant
view of behavior seems to be a good route to uncovering the political
origins of these views.  In any case, sometimes symptoms become
contributors to the disease and I would argue strongly that these
symptoms do contribute significantly to the disease.
 
If I overstate the case for the causal role of these views, I hope 
those who are in an exceptionally rational state of consciousness
will bear with my political license.

--                    
INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!nosc!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 435-6181