HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nadel@aero.org (M.H. Nadel)
Subject: Re: Makeup - a male perspective
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 19:47:18 GMT

In article <92098.121331JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu> Joy Haftel <JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>In article <654@nazgul.UUCP>, bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright) says:
>>o       (I'm going to get flamed for this!) Short hair historically has been
>>        a symbol of free men. Long hair has been a symbol of oppression
>>        and slavery. (I am talking about men's hair here.) This goes back
>>        to the Greeks. And yes, I'm sure you can name many counterexamples.
>
>I don't about the sign of slavery thing, but when you look at Greek
>art (vase paintings especially), you will notice that the young men
>wear their hair long and are unshaven, while the older men have shorter
>hair and beards.  Depictions of Achilleus show him as a beardless youth
>with long hair, while Menelaos etc. have beards.  Often when the young
>men are portrayed in a battle, they have long hair tied back in a bun.
>

Actually, it was more complicated than that.  Young men kept part of their
hair uncut.  They cut it off at puberty and offered it to their river god.
I don't know of any connection to slavery.

Achilles was so young when he sailed off to the Trojan War that his hair
was still uncut.  He cut it off and burned it on the funeral pyre of
Patroclos.

At least according to Rouse's translation of _The Iliad_, including a footnote
on just why Achilles was cutting his hair then and there.


I've read that in ancient Rome free men left their heads uncovered, while
slaves were forced to cover their heads.  This is the origin of the
tradition of Jewish men covering their heads (e.g. by wearing a yarmulke) -
it's intended as a sign of submission to G-d.


By the Industrial Revolution things had changed radically.  Only upper
class men could wear their hair long, since they didn't have to worry about
getting hair caught in machinery.


To bring some soc.women relevance, what all of this goes to show is that
the same signal can mean different things in different cultures.  It used
to be fashionable to be pale, because it showed you didn't have to work
in the sun.  Then it got to be a sign of being rich and trendy to hang out
on beaches, while the poor were cooped up in factories, so being tanned was
trendy.  

To some extent, men and women come from different cultures.  We have to be
careful about reading meanings into outward appearances and behaviors if
we don't get the cultural cues.  I've heard it claimed that the most useful
preparation for a woman who wants to make it big on Wall Street is a careful
reading of the sports pages from the newspaper.

Miriam (in the spring my thoughts turn to baseball) Nadel

-- 
"UCLA's fans are so totally mellow, nine out of every 10 have no idea where in
the world Duke University is located, or whether it was endowed by John Wayne
or named after Patty."     - Mike Downey
nadel@aerospace.aero.org
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: bev@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu (Beverly Huntsberger)
Subject: Re: Makeup - a male perspective
Organization: Univ. of South Carolina, Columbia
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 16:11:51 GMT

In <654@nazgul.UUCP> bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright) writes:

>P.S. My own hair is quite short because it's easy to care for that way and
>because I think balding men look pretty stoopid with long, thin hair!

	Well, you may think they look stoopid (sic),
	but I happen to think my husband's long
	thin pony tail is quite a turn on.

	And far from looking _stupid_, I was raised
	under the "balding == intelligence" theory.
	My husband is a positive example.
bah
-- 
-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Just read his lips:
Now, he wants us to believe in the "tooth fairy".
-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Xref: sparky soc.women:8877 rec.arts.books:7860
From: shortell@spock.ecs.umass.edu (Laurel L Shortell)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: abortion is a women's issue
Date: 17 Apr 92 17:07:27 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Apr17.053940.21988@ccu.umanitoba.ca> kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts) writes:
>In <1992Apr17.011218.2259@risky.ecs.umass.edu> shortell@spock.ecs.umass.edu (Laurel L Shortell) writes:
>
>>In article <carol.703398081@ee.uts.EDU.AU>, carol@ee.uts.edu.au (Carol Gibson) writes:
>
>>> ABORTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MEN!

[ facts about percentages of men in government ]

>>What you say does not address her statement. What you say
>>addresses the issue of male legislation concerning abortion.
>>Two different issues.
>
>The status of my child/future child/potential child is a direct concern of
>mine.  How can it not be?

You didn't talk about your personal concerns in the first post.
You simply relayed percentages of men in government, and for
this reason, I responded. 
Newsgroups: soc.women,rec.arts.books,soc.history,soc.culture.jewish
From: jmhodapp@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu (Jon Hodapp)
Subject: Re: Hitler's Religion (was re: Instant Yuppies)
Organization: JHU/APL
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 16:47:06 GMT


> >> In article <10305@optilink.UUCP> 
> >> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

> CEC:                           
> >There  is   a  widely   held  belief  that,  "Hitler  was  a
> >Christian."   This  false  idea  is  widely  promulgated  by
> >atheists as  part  of  their  propaganda  efforts,  but  the
> >evidence is  entirely on  the other  side.  

"You may see me as an athiest.  God sees me as a member of the Loyal Opposition"
-Woody Allen

Us tricky athiests/agnostics/deists.  I think I'll go listen to my "Agnostic Front" 
album before I insidiously introduce secular humanism into my local
public school.  Oops, almost forgot to chlorinate the water supply.

Jon               JMHODAPP@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
1.  God is all-powerful
2.  God is good.
3.  There is evil in the world.
>>>>>Pick any two.     (Time magazine on Evil in the world)



Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.fan.q
From: rna@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft)
Subject: Re: Pregnancy and MS
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 19:31:21 GMT

In article <1992Apr4.044623.14645@access.digex.com> deja-q@access.digex.com (Lin Yon Q) writes:
>
>Bottom line is that nobody can conclusively diagnose MS.

Bullshit.  This used to be true, pre-CAT/MRI scans.  Now they can
actually see the lesions inside the brain that result in MS-symptoms.
Before scans, the only way to conclusively diagnose MS was after death.

RNA



Newsgroups: soc.women
From: kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts)
Subject: Re: abortion is a women's issue
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 04:14:40 GMT

In <1992Apr16.224926.3959@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:

>kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts) writes:
>>On the other hand, I subscribe to this newsgroup to talk about women. 

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

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

I think I meant women in relation to issues, but I am not entirely sure :-).
I guess I did a poor job of communicating, but my intent was that the content
is more important than the actual gender of the posters.  I have no idea
what issue might belong to women.  Anything that affects people seems to
affect me.

Ken

P.S. theres a few who I love, and they're the ones I have a preference for.
From: lisa@zeppelin.llnl.gov (Lisa Corsetti)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Loser, Loser, who's the loser (was: You want to win(Men's rights and Women's rights).
Date: 16 Apr 92 19:28:23 GMT
Reply-To: lisa@zeppelin.llnl.gov (Lisa Corsetti)
Organization: Climate Model Intercomparison Group, LLNL

In article <12489@tamsun.tamu.edu> cnh5730@maraba.tamu.edu (Charles Herrick) writes:
>
>Sounds like your girlfriend is the loser. After all she
>1) decided to involve herself with a loser
>2) hopped into bed (or was it the backseat of a car) with the loser
>3) didn't take responsibility for birth control
>4) got pregnant by the loser
>5) and carried the loser's child to full term
>
>Now she's paying for her poor judgement.
>
>Don't ask me to feel sorry for her, when she's the one who's the  
>loser.


Excuse me, but my friend is anything *but* a loser.  Sure, she may have
used poor judgement four years ago.  I suppose you lived your life mistake
free.  However, most of your mistakes may not have required drastic changes
in your lifestyle.  I've lots of respect for *any* single mom.  I do not
feel sorry for my friend, but I *do* admire her courage and strength.
The person who won't face up to responsibility *is* the loser!

                                          - Lisa

   "There's no beginning, no ending. There's just infinite
    passion of life."

Xref: sparky soc.women:8643 soc.men:8078 rec.arts.sf.misc:1269
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,rec.arts.sf.misc
Subject: Re: a few statistics
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com
Date: 6 Apr 92 10:48:51 GMT
Organization: M&E (Division of EDS), Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: rivero

In article <1992Apr3.114601.10850@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
> ] 
> ] No.  The *standard* legal definition of life says that anybody with
> ] any neural activity in the brain or brain stem is alive.  The law just
> ] hasn't caught up with anencephalic babies (aren't any other kind of
> ] anencephalitics; they die young) yet.

  Neither has it caught up with research that detects neurochemical
activity in the brain of a fetus in the first trimester. Can't have one
without the other, can we?

  The law (having sociologically supplanted churches as the "religion" 
of the 20th Century) is usually NOT founded in logic or science, but 
in expediency in the arbitration of competing needs and desires. All
too often, (s)he who shouts the loudest gets the favorable legal
treatment for their point of view, which then allows them to extert
control over someone else. Laws based on science or logic would be
unchanging, and since lawmakers earn their livings by changing laws to
serve their patrons, science and logic are a detriment to that industry.
Morality works far better (because there are so MANY dufferent kinds)
and also helps hide the deeper agendas. 

  Our history has shown that as soon as a majority can get together,
the FIRST thing they do is take something away from the minority. All
law really does it to enoble such behavior, as if that's the way it's
"supposed" to be, and that the inconvenienced minority should therefore
just shut up.

  As much as we may look back at laws based on color and deplore them today,
they were, in fact, the law of the land at the time. No doubt, future
generations will look back on the abuse of males in family court as
equally barbarous. 

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com Homo Cyberneticus-Computational Man  |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|   Man hasn't really changed at all. Only the dinosaurs are different!  |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
From: bev@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu (Beverly Huntsberger)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Norplant
Date: 15 Apr 92 17:05:21 GMT
Organization: Univ. of South Carolina, Columbia

In <1992Apr09.163254.2264@fwhnm02.fwrdc.rtsg.mot.com> aharvey@fwhnm02.fwrdc.rtsg.mot.com (Anne Harvey) writes:

> 
>I am considering using the Norplant implant system of contraception.
>I've discussed this with my gynocologist and was given a brochure to
>read.  There does not seem to be any contraindications (I do not want
>to get pregnant for at least the next several years.  I have no
>personal or family history of liver disease, blood clots, breast
>disease, heart disease, high blood pressure, elevated cholesterol,
>etc.)  However, I am breastfeeding my 5 mo. old daughter and would like
>to continue.  My dr.  tells me Norplant will not cause me or the baby
>any problems, but I am slightly skeptical.

>I'd like to hear any personal experience with this type of
>contraception, especially those who have breastfed while using
>Norplant.

>thanks, 
>anne

	Unfortunately, it is a hormone treatment. Just like
	"the pill" is. I heard of "some" problems and hope
	you would research it thoroughly, on your own.
	I forget which magazine I saw it in (sorry) but it
	was a common one and should show up on a search at
	the library.

	Of course the safest thing for you and your baby
	would be a "norplant for men". But we're still waiting.

	Personally, I feel like 10 years on the pill is
	enough and now it's my husband's turn. I Haven't
	finished checking out the alternatives, yet, but I
	don't want Norplant instead of the pill. For me,
	it's really not any different, except that it's 
	"newer" technology. (I even avoid "new" car models)

	Well, I don't know if I've been helpful, but I want
	to say that I appreciated this topic coming up. I
	feel we need to all talk more about this stuff.

	Bev
Organization: Sloppy, little to none
Date: Tuesday, 7 Apr 1992 00:47:12 EDT
From: Joy Haftel <JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Makeup - a male perspective
 <1992Apr6.132012.1@mdcbbs.com>

In article <1992Apr6.132012.1@mdcbbs.com>, rivero@mdcbbs.com says:

>  This adherence to form over substance has many facets. We tolerate shoddy
>behavior in people that look "snazzy" or fashionable. We take the measure
>of each other almost totally on the basis of wardrobe. Like Pavlov's dogs, we
>are trained to pant and drool when we see a 3 piece suit. We, as a culture,

Hmmm.  I bought my first suit today.  Does this mean I will now
impress people?  Cool-o.  I need a job :-).

Personally, I find men in suits boring.  I like men in tights.
Bring back Elizabethan fashions for men!  Doublets and pumpkin pants,
hosen and codpiece--though I am sure these are just earlier versions
of a 3-piece suit.

>  We are all "hooked" by our own insecurities, and as we focus more and more
   ^^^^^^^^^
>attention on our "image" and less and less on who we are as humans, the
>deeper and more addicted we become.

I've noticed this in the presidential campaigns recently--a high
concentration on the "image" the candidate is trying to present, and
low concentration on the man.

BTW, another trend I've noticed--this all-encompassing "we".  "We all"
don't look only at the outward appearance, even if a great majority
do.  You are free to speak for yourself and tendencies in society;
speaking for everyone in the same way is just as insulting as saying
that "all men are rapists."

(Yeah, I know it's nitpicky, but when I hear people saying "we all" do
such and such and it's something I don't personally do, I get irritated.
Those people who like to pontificate on the decadence of modern society
do the same: "We are spoiled today, we all want a quick fix, easy sex,
blah blah blah".  It's shoddy rhetoric and untenable logic)

Joy Haftel               "And traveller's joy beguiles in autumn
JKH107@PSUVM                   Hearts that have lost their own."
                                    --A.E. Housman
Newsgroups: soc.women,rec.arts.books
From: roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Instant Yuppies (was: Concordia University openly practices sex discrimination
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 15:06:59 GMT

In article <10305@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <1992Mar31.084144.9525@midway.uchicago.edu>, gross@befvax.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>> >Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
>> >"National Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable." -- Martin Bormann, 
>> >1941.
>> 
>> P.S.  Why are you quoting a Nazi war criminal in your .sig file?
>> 
>> Leon Gross
>
>Because there's a widespread belief that the National Socialist
>movement was Christian.  I can think of no better quotation to
>demonstrate the falsity of the claim.
>


How's that again?  Quote the words of a lying, murderous criminal?

How about these then?

"We have no further territorial demands." -- Hitler, Munich, 1938.
"We don't want to kill any Jews, just relocate them." -- ibid., a few
years later.

Seriously, have you no better authority for your case than a heinous
Nazi criminal?  

Or do you not wish to confront the behavior of Germany's Christians and
Christian churches, most of which embraced the new order with little
problem?  

Or do you not wish to confront the reinvention of Christianity (something
that happens all the time, btw) as something "German"?  

Now, tell me what special authority Martin Bormann had within Nazi
ideological circles to make that blanket statement, and tell me what
*contect* he was saying it in, and you may begin to have a flicker of an
inkling of a case.

Oh, and tell me what words he actually used.  I doubt he spoke them in
English, and the word that translates to "Christianity" also translates
to "The Christian World" or "Christendom."  

So, unless you really CAN'T think of a better refutation than a vague,
out-of-context quote from someone whose authority in these matters was
less than complete, and whose credibility is zero to begin with, how
about ponying up?

Roger
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,soc.singles
From: tlode@isis.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: Request : Dating advice from women
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 92 21:53:01 GMT

In article <64861@apple.Apple.COM> stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones) writes:
>>>>Trygve    (What can I say?  I like aggressive women--besides, I tend to
>>>>           simply overwhelm the non-aggressive ones and then it gets
>>>>           boring.)
>>>
>>>[brandishing Uzi]
>>>
>>>*GRRRRRRR!* *SNNNNNAAAAARRRRRRRL!* HANDS AGAINST THE WALL! SHUT UP!
>>>
>>>Gee...it feels weird...but it's sort of fun in a way...
>>>
>>
>>Oooooh, baby!  (I've always enjoyed a woman coming up with a way to render
>>                me speechless--or at least unable to continue making
>>                coherent sentences.  This particular technique could use
>>                a little work, but....)
>>
>[releasing trygve] OK...just checking that you were using the word
>"aggressive" properly. We wouldn't want you to use "aggressive" when
>you meant "assertive," and well....we get a little aggressive about
>our enforcement sometimes.

Personally, I like both aggressive and assertive--I'm fully capable of
saying 'no,' seeing to it that my limits are respected, and making my
wishes known and taken care of, so neither aggressiveness nor
assertiveness is any threat or inconvenience to me.

Plus, there's the question of where you draw the line between aggressive
and assertive--over the last few months, I've had a couple of women do
things like unexpectedly fling themselves through space onto me and wrap
their legs around my torso, and I suspect that most people would 
classify that sort of behavior as aggressive.  On the other hand, does
someone coming up to you and saying, "I want to make love to you" count
as aggressive or assertive?

Wait--I know!  It's

      Assertive:  "Make love to me, please."
      Aggressive: "Make love to me, NOW!"



>>>Stef                 Where am I going, and what am I doing in this handbasket?
>>
>>Trygve    (Tell me again where to put my hands.)
>
>In the basket!

>Stef

Trygve    (OK, my hands are in the handbasket with you.  Hmmmm...now to
           think up a few things to do with them....)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.fan.q
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Makeup, Cosmo, Ms. and car paint.
Summary: Well, I swan...
Organization: The man with only two cats, thank "Bob"
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 04:37:32 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.042721.18934@rice.edu> charity@owlnet.rice.edu (Charity R. Bettoney) writes:
>In article <1992Apr4.224928.18311@access.digex.com> deja-q@access.digex.com (Lin Yon Q) writes:
>
>>of course all women force their husbands to buy them cosmetics, and, of 
>>course, all women in fact MARRY their husbands in order to obtain these
>>narcotic type cosmetics,
>
>Huh?!  Oh, no!  I have a whole shelf of cosmetics and I've never even been
>married!  I've been doing this makeup thing all wrong!  Thanks for setting
>me straight, Q.

Wow.  My wife had a bunch of them -- bought 'em herself -- *before* she
married me...and she still buys them to this day.  It's almost a shame she
doesn't read the net to see such pearls of "wisdom" as Q unearths.

>>Ah, the blithering of the truly deranged.  Mike, get a life.  Get a job.
>>Stop posting to the net.  
>>
>>Q
>
>Advice is much easier to give than to take, huh, Q?

That's the general impression, seeing as he's done nothing but give...
I know it's better to give than to receive, but this is ridiculous.  :-)

--PL"Q can have my '77 Chevette"H, glad he's got a bike, at least...

-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
  +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 713 776-1541 at home. 713 527-4056 at Willy's Pub.

                        The SubGenius MUST have Slack!
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: more thoughts on a new slant to rape stats
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com
Date: 6 Apr 92 12:31:18 GMT
Organization: M&E (Division of EDS), Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: lems

In article <1992Apr2.215258.4829@newshub.sdsu.edu>, stark@saturn.sdsu.edu (Brian D. Stark) writes:
> In article <1992Apr2.190650.9910@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> btwomey@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (william.tw0mey) writes:
>>
>>In article <1992Apr2.171937.10395@acsu.buffalo.edu> writes:
>>
>>>all men are POTENTIAL rapists
>>
> This statement is incorrect only for those men who are physically incapable
> of rape.  In the context of its use it is 100 % correct.
> 
> I am not the slightest bit offended by the afforementioned statement.  I
> have the physical ability, even if I would never do such a thing. 
> 

  If you would never do such a thing, then you are hardly a potential
rapist, and you should not be treated as one, or brainwashed into
treating yourself as one!





<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com Homo Cyberneticus-Computational Man  |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: gwangung@byron.u.washington.edu (Roger Tang)
Subject: Re: Carol Moseley Braun (was Re: Women in Politics)
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 22:58:12 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.204024.22508@midway.uchicago.edu> gross@befvax.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <BMCLF5.Mvp@world.std.com>, tp> > arks@world.std.com (terry parks) writes:
>I apologize for this conversation.  The person in question is extremely
>offensive and thinks that Carol Moseley Braun, the NAACP, the league
>of Women Voters and other groups are racist and sexist.

	Actually, I think "mr parks" is doing all this to yank our chains.
Nobody is THAT stupid or ill-informed.

	Then again.....it may be that "mr. parks" is the product of the
American educational system...hmm....


-- 
	"I got into theatre originally to pick up girls. Unfortunately, all I
found were women..."
e-mail:  gwangung@milton.u.washington.edu
Newsgroups: soc.women