HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: compromise (was Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 22:02:36 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.163937.5772@u.washington.edu> rons@hardy.u.washington.edu (Ronald Schoenberg) writes:
)In article <7560136@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> erik@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Erik Lode) writes:
)>rons@hardy.u.washington.edu (Ronald Schoenberg) writes:
)>
)>> I don't have to be a bleepin' feminist to explain it to you.  Men
)>> control wealth and they control access to it.  This was not
)>> accomplished with the permission of women, they just took it.
)>
)>  You're a man; how much wealth and access to wealth do you control?
)>How much wealth and access to wealth does the average laid-off factory
)>worker (male) have?  Not every man is H. Ross Perot.
)>
)>  So, where do I sign up for the wealth that you claim is my birthright?
)
)Get an MBA from Stanford and join a large corporation.  Start a
)company and work hard.  Marry the daughter of a wealthy man or be his
)son.  There are lots of ways for a man to acquire control of wealth,
)but almost no ways for a women to.

Sorry, the data doesn't bear you out.  As I mentioned in my previous
post, the tax return data show a slight favoritism towards men as
far as 'wealtholding' goes, but nothing near what you suggest.

The data in 'Statistical Abstracts', which I also looked up, shows that
of the 'top wealthholders with gross assets of $500,000 or more',
men held 2,162,692 million dollars, and women 1,604,014 million.
This means women are about .74 of men - not equity, but certainly not
as far off as you suggest.

I lack the data to prove this, but my personal opinion that both the
easiest and the most common way to achieve extreme  wealth is to inherit
it...

BTW - I suspect that the report I mentioned before omitted a '1000's'
multiplier from the number of wealtholders - the Statistical Abstracts
data indicates there should be about 389.2 THOUSAND men and 320.9
THOUSAND women in the $1-$2.5 million 'net worth' range.
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: doug@crevasse.ATMOS.ColoState.Edu (Doug Cripe)
Subject: Re: WET DREAMS: How often? Why?
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1992 17:47:04 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

In article <1992Nov5.113229.16785@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>  
noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
> In article <1992Nov4.235512.29164@philabs.philips.com>  
nrh@philabs.philips.com (Nikolaus R. Haus) writes:
> >I was wondering: if your 'average' man were to go without sex of any  
sort (with other
> 
> Since I work right alongside your average man, I asked him.  He did not
> like this topic.  He stated, "Where would you possibly find such a  
person?
> Your average man who goes `completely' without sex, including pulling
> his noodle?  Well, already, you're not talking average man.  You're
> talking fantasy--

Beg your pardon??  I'm 32 and still a virgin since I happen to believe  
that sex should be saved for marriage.  I also have _many_ (male and  
female) friends who feel the same way.  It used to be not long ago that  
saving sex for marriage was considered normal, and that jumping into bed  
with anything that moved was considered, to put it diplomatically, a lack  
of self control.  The current national obsession with sex is really  
pathetic, and is the root of many evils - abortion, AIDS, denegration of  
men and women through pornography, date rape, etc.  Do what you wish, but  
please don't be so presumptious as to think that people who abstain from  
sex until marriage are a fantasy, impossible to find.  You're quite wrong.
From: dwelch@mpd.tandem.com (Dan Welch)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Date: 11 Nov 92 16:43:49 GMT
Organization: Tandem Computers (MPD) Austin, TX

In article <BxIpLn.Gox@nocusuhs.nnmc.navy.mil> perez@mgr.hjf.org (Charles Perez) writes:
>In article <1992Nov6.150355.9849@rtf.bt.co.uk> fletcher@rtf.bt.co.uk (Catherine Fletcher) writes:
>>1.  Doubt (by the word "if") one of the few statistics that it is safe to
>>    "believe" because the information it contains is straightforward
>>    and easy to obtain from accurate and diverse sources. 
>
>If I recall correctly, it is a comparison of the average pay of a working
>woman versus that of a working man.

You recall correctly, and as such, the stat is completely meaningless.
Utterly without worth.  Not to beat a dead horse, but it ignores the
differences in:

    - pay scales for different jobs
    - how many hours per week and weeks per year men work vs. women (i.e.,
      what exactly does "full time" mean?)
    - levels of educations
    - levels of experience
    - willingness to take a lower-paying, but more personally satisfying, job
    - time taken off from the job for personal reasons

Plus several more; these are just the major ones.  Any single one of these
is enough to cause vast disparity between annual salaries, and the old 59%
"study" ignores them all.  Jesus Christ, more reliable studies have shown
that, in some cases, women are being payed 2-4% *more* than men for the same
job.  And yet this statistic keeps getting propogated, because people hear
it and never bother to think about its truthfulness.

It's a *myth*, people!  Give it up!

Daniel Welch
From: jsue@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey L. Sue)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 6 Nov 92 21:49:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: ncsa.1992Nov6.214939.18570
Distribution: na
Organization: The Dow Chemical Company
Originator: jsue@pluto.ncsa.uiuc.edu

In article <1992Nov5.223154.24695@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> jlacey@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (james.w.lacey) writes:
>
>The First Amendment, radified 15 Dec 1791, states "Congress (ie, the state)
>shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion (ie, a church)
>or the free exercise thereof;..."
>
>IMHO, this is a pretty clear statement of the doctrine of the separation
>of church and state.  I would also consider the Bill of Rights to be
>among our "founding documents."
>

What?  Do you understand the English language?
The statement, as you have extracted it, says that Congress is prohibited
from writing laws governing how a religious establish can conduct itself.
This says absolutely NOTHING about creating laws based on religous
beliefs.  I'd bet you could find many that are based on someone's religious
beliefs.

You'll need to find another passage to prove your point, 'cause that
one misses it completely.

-- 
-----
Jeff Sue   
 - All opinions are mine -       (and you can't have any, nya nya nya)
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: War on Fathers (was: StipU whatever
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 20:00:48 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.093232.10847@walter.cray.com> jsw@cray.com writes:

>>Well, let's not misrepresent the data on this. 
>
> By ignoring the changes to the system since 1987, you are definitely 
>misrepresenting data! 

Okay.  That's the only data I had lying around.  Why not present some
more recent stuff for us?

rini
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: real women
Date: 10 Nov 92 00:54:27 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <1992Nov6.030057.28538@dragon.acadiau.ca> 891666t@dragon.acadiau.ca (Trish Turliuk) writes:
>I want to see a real woman.

	Try a nude beach.

> this keeps women striving and feeling inadequate 

	I lose you at "this keeps".  Why is it that I don't feel adequate
'cause I don't look like Don Johnson and drive a Ferrari?  Why is it that
women cave in to such pressures?  Half the time I hear "We don't need your
protection" and half the time I hear "We're too weak to resist".


Xref: sparky soc.men:18882 soc.women:19078 alt.abortion.inequity:4954 talk.abortion:47170 alt.feminism:3956
From: auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: compromise
Date: 8 Nov 92 07:25:20 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Swarthmore College, PA

>  "i suspect that you do sound pro-choice to some people. i would
>   doubt "most." that is why i thought it important to point out
>   that you are not, in fact, pro-choice as you do not oppose
>   legislation to restrict a woman's right to an abortion during the
>   third trimester."
>
>        keegan@daisymae.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
>        <1992May24.032109.20775@crd.ge.com>

Why I bit at this obvious bait is beyond me.  I suppose I am just curious as
to how he is going to twist my words around.

-dave
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood)
Subject: Re: Self Appreciation (was: Re: Elle MacPh
Reply-To: jsw@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 12 Nov 92 14:06:13 CST

In article 4931@mr.med.ge.com, wendy@sundown.mil.wi.us () writes:
>
>I just thought I would say that I find this whole thread interesting. Being a
>Transexual on her way to transition, I can understand both sides. Most men,
>being members of the White Male System, have no idea of what women go through.
>They cannot remotely see how women are inherently treated as inferior in this
>culture. It sure was a learning experience for me, I can tell you that!!!!!
>

  You're attitude will not make your transition a hell of a lot easier. It also
explains why you probably didn't feel welcome in the "system", as you put it.
Quite frankly, I'm glad you left the White Male System. The Black One wouldn't
want you either, honky.

>I suggest that before you men spoute off about how women are not treated as
>inherently inferior, you become better informed. Try the book "Women's Reality"
>by Ann Schaef. It might enlighten you. It did me. Helped me understand why
>women sometimes think of themselves as second class citizens. And why I'll
>be treated the same way as I go out into society as a women. Hasn't changed
>my mind what-so-ever, but has prepared me somewhat to cope with it.

You transitional White Male System Types shouldn't go around blaming me
for a womens inferiority complex. It makes you sound like a bigot in 
women's clothing. 

>
>
>Wendy




Newsgroups: soc.men
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: compromise (was Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 00:57:39 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.175521.26909@u.washington.edu> rons@hardy.u.washington.edu (Ronald Schoenberg) writes:

)As I've noted in another post, this discussion group is in a sorry
)state if it really believes that women are economically equal to men.
)We could trade personal anecdotes all day, but we would be just
)pointing out a few trees in the forest.  That men control the political
)and economic activity of this planet is supported by a great deal of
)research evidence, it appears that such evidence would be unlikely to
)sway people who prefer to see only the trees in their immediate
)vicinity (and, no doubt, are even unable to see the trees in their
)immediate vicinity that fail to support them).

Actually, the idea that men 'control' the political and economic 
activity of the planet (with an iron fist?) is not particulary clear, and
repeated claims (without sources) that 'research evidence' supports this
claim don't do much to prove it.

It also seems to me that you misrepresent and/or misunderstand the
opposition.   Extreme claims of rule and control (either by men or by women)
seem to be the basis of your position.  The idea that things might not be
black and white, that there actually might not be any 'control' over the
world by some widespread gender conspiracy seems not to register with you.
Perhaps you are so tied up in the idea that _somebody_ must be 'running
things' that it hasn't occured to you that things might just sort of
struggle along due to inertia, rather than as the result of some nefarioius
and mildly paranoid 'master plan' cooked up by those who Run Things.
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.supermodels,alt.feminism
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 10:48:58 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.024335.10437@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>An article I read recently prompts me to take a stab at this.

A good post!  

It's this reasoning that makes me wonder why so many people are upset
with Spike Lee for hiring African Americans and asking for African
American reporters to interview him and review his films.  He's using
his clout to insure that some African Americans have jobs.  Of coure,
we're supposed to believe that we all have a level playing field now
and Lee is just being racist.

If he had been really wise, he would have done what white men did
before AA.  He would have interviewed a lot of people and then claimed
that the best candidate for every position just happens to be African
American.  Or said "Whites just don't want to work at my stores or be
film critics..."

Newsgroups: soc.men
From: ematz@world.std.com (Ed Matz)
Subject: Re: "toxic masculinity"
Keywords: Couvade, birthing, absentee fathers
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 18:58:35 GMT

In article <4130@unisql.UUCP> wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie) writes:
>In article <Bx4Ixt.M2G@world.std.com> ematz@world.std.com (Ed Matz) writes:
>>the stereotypical male sex-role only exaggerated.
>
>	Sorry.  How about more detail?  Like, what behaviors make my
>masculinity "toxic" and which are acceptable?  Is there "toxic femininity"
>or do only men suffer from too much of a good thing?

Last things first.   Yeah, there probably is a "toxic femininity," which
is a corrallary (sp?) to toxic masculinity.   I think that would be
for women to define, however.

Toxic masculinity "is a new concept to describe that which poisons
through neglect, abuse, and violence." [Shepherd Bliss, "Overcoming
Toxic Masculinity," _Changes_ Sept.-Oct. 1990, pg. 36]   "Masculinity
itself is not inherently negative, in spite of some contemporary
writings about 'men who can't love' and 'men who hate women.'   Healthy
masculinity does many wonderful things -- father children, fight fires,
harvest food, love the feminine, write poetry, play music. . . . It
is generative, earthy, nurturing, playful, forceful, and zany." [_ibid_]
Of course, the coarseness that is inherent in masculinity will be 
proportional to the coarseness in the environment in which one lives.
Which is why toxic masculinity is not associated with coarseness alone.
(A good discussion of that relationship may be found in David Gilmore's
_Manhood In The Making_, Yale University Press, 1990.)

In toxic masculinity, because the males grew up with either the
physical or psychological "absence of a father in the household,
young boys will come to believe that females have  control of the 
resources." [Gwen J. Broude, "Rethinking the Couvade: Cross-Cultureal
Evidence," _American Anthropologist_, Dec 1, 1988, v90(4):902-911]
To supplement the first paragraph, here, toxic masculinity can
also be called masculine protest behavior, which consists of "boasting;
pugnacity; pursuit of military glory; and narcissism." [_ibid_]

Hope this helps.

--Ed Matz		ematz@world.std.com
From: "Amy Young Leith" <alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 19:47:06 -0500

>>fletcher@rtf.bt.co.uk (Catherine Fletcher) writes:
>>
>>>By the way, anyone who has the slightest grasp of what sexism is and doesn't
>>>understand why an Elle calendar is offensive and harmful and a Chippendales
>>>calendar isn't probably has no aptitude for complex thought - therefore I
>>>am resorting to condescending insult rather than reasoned explanation.

Instead of throwing insults, perhaps you could just support your own
opinions... there IS a difference between the two?  If so, what is it?
I suppose now you're going to say that women can't be sexist, right?
Therefore it's ok if women look at men as objects, but not the other
way around, right?
-- 
alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu for personal mail
			    All business mail to alyoung@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       I only speak for myself.  Anyone who thinks differently is a fool.

Xref: sparky soc.men:18990 soc.women:19219
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: War on Fathers (was: StipU whatever
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 21:49:24 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.050116.2959@midway.uchicago.edu>
mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>Well, let's not misrepresent the data on this.  
>
>Let's take family income at time t.  Say a divorce happens at time t.
>How does that effect the income of men and women?  What is the ratio
>of income in subsequent years to the income before the divorce?
>
>                     Years after time t
>                    1        3         5
>                 -------------------------
>women             .81      .97      1.01
>men               .84      .99      1.03
>(no divorce)     1.17     1.17      1.28

What's wrong with this picture?

Hint: at time t+1, a familty (no divorce) earns 17% more than at time
t.  If they still don't get divorced at t+1, then at t+2, I'd expect
them to earn 17% more than at t+1; likewise, at t+3 they'd earn 17%
more than at t+2.  Yet at t+, they're earning the same as at t+1.

Furthermore, if a couple gets divorced, their total income increases
to 1.65 times their pre-divorce income.

Or are you comparing the man's post-divorce income to the man's
pre-divorce income (and likewise for the woman)?  In that case, how
can they both be losing money?

>source: Child Support and Alimony: 1987.  US Bureau of the Census,
>Current Population Reports.

"This book is dedicated to all those people who ever believed anything
that any government ever said about anything."  (from memory, probably
misquoted) -- Donald Westlake

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Xref: sparky soc.men:19009 soc.women:19242
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.supermodels,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Date: 9 Nov 92 22:50:35 GMT
Article-I.D.: midway.1992Nov9.225035.15414
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

>>On these grounds, I think one could also argue that a Chippendale's 
>>calendar also means a very different thing in our society than
>>a swimsuit calendar.  I'm pretty sure they do mean different things
>>to your average Joe and Jane Doe.  (Note that I'm not interested in 
>>debating if one is harmful and the other is not -- it's not real clear
>>cut to me.  I'm no semi-nude calendar expert!  I don't really have
>>much of a clue as to what the two types of calendar "mean".)
 
>>Does that make any sense?
 
>Yes, the old "oppressed people cannot be x-ist" argument.

No it isn't.  

Apparently, you tried very hard to read something into what I wrote
that was clearly not there.

What I'm saying is that it may not be very meaningful to compare
a bikini calendar of women to a Chippendale's calendar of men.  
Maybe it would be *more* useful to compare a bikini calendar 
of women to a calendar of bachelor men which listed their 
incomes, assets, and number of credit cards.  

*That's* what I mean when I say that sexism is a two-way street, but
it necessarily doesn't operate in the same way to the different people.
Indeed, the very existence of "sexism" implies that there are double-
standards.  

If the world was as full of Chippendale's calendars as it is full 
of calendars of scantily clad women, I think it'd be silly to conclude
that the sexism has now simply doubled.  Instead, this would be a
convincing indicator to suggest that isn't a sexist world anymore at
all.

rini
From: mpevans@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark Evans)
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 16:01:13 GMT

bramble@bcarhab.bnr.ca (Tim Bramble) writes:

>I find it disturbing when individuals feel that 'reverse' prejudice (i.e. 
>reciprocating existing prejudices) is justified because of what has happened in
>the past.  Consistently, people harbour resentment for others because of something
>that happened long enough ago that neither side was even alive at the time.  As
>an example take WWII.  I have seen people, aged thirty or less, express their
>hatred for Germans because of the atrocities committed during the War.  These 
>people would blame their current German counterparts for actions that they had
>no part in.  Yes, scars remain in that these people might have been affected 

Also Include the people in japan and Germany (and quite a few other places)
who feel the same way about the atrocities commited by the allies,

>indirectly, but those they are accusing are no more responsible for the
>past than they.  We should resolve, instead, never to let such a thing happen
>again rather than pointing fingers.

>Along similar lines: if I endeavour to eliminate sexism and provide as equal
>a footing for women as that which exists for men currently, why should I in turn
>be discriminated against as a man because some men are sexist?
Do men have a manopoly on being sexist?
Do men have all the advantages and women all of the disadvantages, in the current
setup?

>I almost wish that we could forget history so that we could start with a clean
>slate and deal with each other as individuals - very idealistic, I realize, but
>with application a very real solution.

I dis agree only by knowing where hate and bigotry spring from can
there be any chance to do anything about them.

Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: the BA-TA get-together shindig blowout!!
Summary: Who cares if it's inappropriate?
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 04:54:35 GMT

I hadn't seen anyone else's post yet so I thought I'd say it first.  We
had a good time at the recent shindig.  Got to meet Larry Margolis and
Lori (sp?), Nadja's SO (I'm terrible at names), James Woodyatt, Ray
Fischer, and Dan King for the first time.  All nice people.  Also got
to visit with the inimitable Drieux, the luscious Diana, the silver-tongued
CJ, the studly Eric R., and the vivacious Nadja again.  Hope I didn't
leave anyone out.

It was so nice of Larry to make a special trip out here for the event (but
that's the kind of dedicated people pro-choicers are).  The conversation
was scintilating, as usual and consisted of politics, work, personal life,
and, of course, the "special cases" here on t.a.

Can't leave without mentioning the tour of Nadja's  <ahem>  "entertainment
center".  Quite interesting.  I'm afraid it makes me look like a Catholic
virgin.  The last time I saw that much leather in one place it was mooing.

Let's do it again, and this time actually invite Chaney.  If Larry can
make the trip from the East Coast, surely Chaney can drive 2.5 hours. ;-)
I'll buy him a drink, if he turns out to be old enough.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), Beth 
"CJ", and Nadja, and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.
[space reserved for alternate ex-girlfriends Eric R. and Drieux]
-- 
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.
Xref: sparky soc.men:19058 soc.women:19293