HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: acw4@quads.uchicago.edu ("The Wan-ster")
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Beards vs. Make-up
Date: 24 Nov 92 02:09:02 GMT
Reply-To: acw4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Nov23.172708.2945@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>
>A surprising number of people (men and women) don't like beards.  I've
>never understood that.  One complaint seems to be that beards are hard
>on a lover's skin.  I've found that beards are much softer than a
>clean-shaven face which needs a shave.
>
 
I find this to be true too, although I dislike beards.
At school, 
I see a lot of guys who like to experiment by letting their beards
grow, it seems, as long as possible.  There's a point to which I will
tolerate beards but to the length I see them grown, they just become
a mess, express a dire need for hygiene, and a sight for sore eyes.

-- 
  /\ /\//\//~  
 /~~\     /~  acw4@midway.uchicago.edu 
          ~~
From: tibbetts@hsi.com (Todd Tibbetts)
Subject: =={ Unplastic News #6 }==
Organization: 3M Health Information Systems, Wallingford, CT
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:00:09 GMT

()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()
()()							()()
()()	The Unplastic News (issue #6) 			()()
()()					Now Available	()()
()()	This Electronic Magazine has:			()()
()()		quotes					()()
()()		snipets					()()
()()		thoughts				()()
()()			   ...for those with limited	()()
()()			   time, but a desire to think	()()
()()							()()
()()   This issue-->> The Lopsided Issue		()()
()()		      about women's rights & education	()()
()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()
()()   		        				()()
()()	mail to:		or ftp to:		()()
()() tibbetts@hsi.hsi.com				()()
()() 			   redspread.css.itd.umich.edu	()()
()()			   ftp.eff.org			()()
()()			   quartz.rutgers.edu		()()
()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()

Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
From: jimkalb@dorsai.com (Jim Kalb)
Subject: Re: Get a CLUE, a LARGE CLUE
Organization: The Dorsai Embassy +1.718.729.5018
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 15:27:46 GMT

anthony@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Anthony J Stieber) writes:

: Dancing ability (or or any other ability) would not seem to be genetic.  

Why would anyone believe this?
-- 
Jim Kalb (jimkalb@dorsai.com)
"Every thing possible to be believ'd is an image of truth."  (Blake)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Self Appreciation (was: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 04:56:38 GMT

In article <1992Nov22.032913.24080@news.Hawaii.Edu> mwasson@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Michael Wasson) writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.032253.11008@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov12.171018.4931@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.
>>[deleted sarcasm]
>
>Gee, Rich, she was just trying to make a point.  I mean, for most of us,
>"being in the other person's shoes" is just a thought-experiment.  She's
>actually done it.  Have you?  *I* haven't.  

And so was I, what is -your- problem? And no, I have not done it. But
do you understand everything you have done? That it is very real for Wendy
does not imply that she understands everything. In later posts, she mentions 
extreme confusion and stress because of this. Which seems understandable
to me.

Nevertheless, she should have an interesting perspective.
 
>>Since you made a public anouncement, I hope you won't mind my asking why?
>>(The sex change that is)
>
>Didn't the original post say something about always having felt that
>she was a woman, biological gender notwithstanding?  So, that's why,
>I would imagine.  Wendy?

It was not included in the original post, which was why I asked. Since
my reply was to the first text I saw, and I did not delete any of the
original text, you must have edited it out if it were there. Which would
not be a wise editing decision BTW. 
 
>>>Wendy
>>Rich
>>payner@netcom.com
>
>Mike
>mwasson@uhunx.uhcc.hawaii.edu
 
Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Entry level salaries (was: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 00:30:10 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.213309.22492@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>In article <23942@galaxy.ucr.edu> starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu (starbuck) writes:
>>You just can't stand not to get the last word in can you Muffy.  I mean
>>any reasonable person would accept these numbers as rather good.  You
>>can't stand to see it good for women can you?  Your life would be rather
>>unimportant if women's lives were not as bad as you think they are?  Admit
>>Mufffy you would rather be unhappy and angry and paranoid wouldn't you?
>
>As far as Muffy just wanting to get in the last word, perhaps you
>should take a look at the exchanges between Payne and Lynch, Fitch and
>Berry, Sheaffer and rini et al.  I'm also having a nasty email
>exchange with Payne, probably because both of us are assholey enough
>not to let it drop.  

Yes, ljf is sending me nasty mail. My replies have not been equally
nasty. And I find the assertions above about on par with the mail.
 

Rich

payner@netcom.com


Xref: sparky soc.women:19854 alt.feminism:4668 soc.men:19522
From: quilty@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Humberto Humbertoldi)
Subject: Re: Practise what you preach? (was:what is sexist?)
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 22:55:50 GMT

In article <1e8t4lINN95k@saffron.csv.warwick.ac.uk> maufd@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Mr J S Graley) writes:

>>No, dear. 
>>
>>Muffy
>>--
>
> A nice, harmless - endearing, even - little phrase inserted to add a little
>lightness and interest to the otherwise humdrum world of the newsgroup net.
>
>I don't think!
>
......[J S Graley complains about Muffy's use of "No, dear"].......

Ok, Morley, honey, we on the news group will try not to address you to
familiarly.  You just try not to worry your pretty little head about
that nasty Muffy. 


-- 
     _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ THIS MESSAGE WAS BROUGHT TO YOU BY: _/_/_/_/_/_/ 
   _/_/                              Postmodern Enterprises              _/_/ 
  _/_/  MAKERS OF CHAOS....                                             _/_/ 
 _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ LOOK FOR IT IN A NEIGHBORHOOD NEAR YOU _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ 
Xref: sparky soc.women:19987 alt.feminism:4754 soc.men:19626
From: robert@informix.com (Robert Coleman)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Self Appreciation (was: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Date: 20 Nov 92 01:18:58 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

wendy@sundown.mil.wi.us writes:

>Peter Chrzanowski (chrz@tellabs.com) wrote:
>>  
>> Has someone made claims of superiority?  Where, when?  Or do you mean
>> that because I consider this book is not only hateful but also laughably
>> bad then I must be a racist, sexist pig?
>> 

>Peter,

>This is turning into a flamewar. You are showing exactly how males act by
>having to win this disagreement. You want to win???? OK, You win! You can
>now go off and say that you won..... 

>You may well be a racist, sexist pig.  I don't know you well enough to say. 
>Maybe someone else here on the net could enlighten us.

>I will say this. You are looking at this from one side only. I am starting
>to see it from the other side. Whether you believe it or not, women are 
>looked down upon in this society. Very few men treat them as equals. 

>I will no longer discuss the book with you. If you want to discuss 
>transexual issues, I will. But I think it's useless for us to continue
>discussing the book. 

	Wendy,

	Why do you use the word "male" with "women" in this close context?
Why not "male" and "female", or "men" and "women"?  To my mind, it indicates
a bias that negates the value of your having been on both sides of the wall...
in fact, you've stated that you've seen it from both sides, while
simultaneously maintaining that you've "always been a woman" psychologically.
Which one more nearly qualifies your position?

	Still, I'd be interesting in hearing examples...

Robert C.
-- 
----------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: My company has not yet seen fit to
	    elect me as spokesperson. Hmmpf.
From: mikep@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Mike Powell)
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 03:43:15 GMT
Subject: Re: Rape and sex related?
Organization: HP Santa Rosa Site (SRSD MWTD)
Newsgroups: soc.women

	
	Hi Ron...

	I too have heard 100's of times that rape has nothing to
	do with sex.... it is all violence...

	And of course that kind of statement is a bunch of garbage
	(and reflects poorly on the thinking processes of those who
	make it).  It is often stated by people who adopt opinions
	rather than forming them.

	We all have heard the statistics on date rape and how women
	across this country (not all) consider 'pressuring' a woman 
	(notice, not men, only women) to have sex, is a form of rape.

	These instances have EVERYTHING to do with sex....

	Feminists often seen to want it both ways.... rape is pure
	violence.... and then on the other hand, damned near any
	sexual contact is considered rape.

	The fact is...  rape can be violent... or it can be sexual
	or it can be both...

	Try to steer clear of those that would make absolute claims.
	They probably just have an agenda, and could care less about
	facts.

	-Mike-
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: A GREAT Night for Americans!  (Women especially!)
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:34:37 GMT

In article <Bxo4GF.CAp@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

)  Prostate cancer probaby is underfunded on this basis, but this
)  is changing as more men are willing to go public about it.  (my
)  father died of prostate cancer, BTW).  Also note the demographics
)  of prostate cancer: it's extremely common in old men, but mostly
)  it's a very slow grower and most prostate cancer victims die
)  of natural causes.  This has tended to result in less urgency
)  about it.  But now that men are living longer this is changing.
)
)  Also, note that the epidemiology of lung cancer and stroke are
)  relatively well understood compared to other deadly diseases
)  (likewise AIDS but this does nothing for those already HIV+).
)  That is, we alredy know how to greatly reduce the number of deaths
)  from these diseases in the next few decades. And indeed, as
)  smoking declines lung cancer is expected to decline, too. 
)  But we don't have a clue how to significantly reduce the risks
)  of breast and prostate cancer.  
)
)  Bottom line: the table above is all apples-and-oranges.

I'd agree that it isn't fair to compare AIDS to cancer using current deaths
However, it seems reasonably fair to me to compare two cancers.
I'm not sure I understand your argument why lung cancer/stroke are 
'apples and oranges' compared to breast cancer.  Is there a difference in
cure rate, or is it just 'don't smoke' and 'don't eat fatty food' that makes
you say we have 'an answer' to them?  If that's the case, is 'don't have
unsafe sex' an 'answer' for AIDS deaths?

Newsgroups: soc.women
From: 890530m@dragon.acadiau.ca (Darren MacKenzie)
Subject: Re: <none>
Organization: Acadia University
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 02:21:37 GMT

mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:

>In article <1992Nov18.181215.4795@dragon.acadiau.ca> 
>890530m@dragon.acadiau.ca (Darren MacKenzie) writes:
> 
>>I remember this discussion came up a couple years back on the net.  I'll
>>say the same thing now that I say then.  As I am living in a co-ed dorm,
>>I would have no problems of shared bathrooms (even in public places).  

>[...]

>>I expect flames from all the feminists from this one, and I can't wait to
>>see the replies.

>Gosh, I'm so sorry to disappoint you.

>rini
>-who has a co-ed bathroom in her house.

That's not a very PUBLIC bathroom, is it Rini?
-Doc

-- 
=============================================================================== The Commodore Amiga 4000 - 24 bit          16,777,216 colors (4096^2)!!         ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Buster: "Say goodnight, Babs."                                                 
Babs  : "Goodnight, Babs."                                                      I'm tiny, I'm toony, and I'm a little looney!                                   ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Darren MacKenzie                                                                ("The Doctor")                                                                  890530m@aucs.acadiau.ca
===============================================================================
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: charleen@ADS.COM (Charleen Bunjiovianna)
Subject: Re: getting fired after making sexual harrassment complaint - illegal?
Organization: The Original Estrogen-Crazed Lust Bunnies
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 01:15:48 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.141623.27000@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> cfaks@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Alice Sanders) writes:
>In article <1992Nov11.075320.27151@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>>
>>At the risk of sounding as if I'm giving you the brushoff, it really
>>doesn't matter what "others" on the net might think.  What matters is
>>what a competent lawyer (hopefully whose specialty is employees'
>>rights and/or sexual harassment cases) thinks.  This woman you're
>>talking about needs to consult a lawyer, not listen to our ramblings
>>on here.  Please encourage her to do so.
>
>ExcuseME!  I have a right to ask for insights and information on a
>subject.  Of course, she is seeing a lawyer.  But at the time I posted
>this, she had just been fired and was really raw meat, looking for how to
>proceed.  You are reading it several days later.  

I'm by no means one of ljf's biggest fans, but you're being grossly unfair.

She gave you excellent advice.  Far too often, people come on the net and
ask for opinions and treat those opinions as if they are authoritative,
when oftener than not they are poorly thought-out and just plain WRONG.
In a sexual harassment case, the only advice you--oops, "your friend"--should
take is from your--oops, "her"--lawyer.

The fact that you reacted in such a hostile manner to ljf's suggestion
suggests to me that you--oops, "your friend"--don't believe that the
harassment case is as strong and clear-cut as you state, and that your
posting was simply a bid for sympathy.

Ironically, here's where the difference in male/female communication styles
comes in:  women tend to offer sympathy when a problem is broached, men
tend to offer solutions.  Yet the one person who I thought was a woman offered
a solution, and at least two men offered sympathy.  Strange.

Charleen

--
Q:  What do you call a fig newton made on the other side
    of the world?

A:  A far fig newton.
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: jennings@tran.fishkill.ibm.com ()
Subject: Re: test
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 20:20:57 GMT
Reply-To: jennings@tran.fishkill.ibm.com ()
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <1992Nov17.183815.23347@pellns.alleg.edu>, stringb writes:
> 
> 
> youblow
> 
> 
gesundheit...
From: stewart@geophysics.harvard.edu (Cheryl Stewart)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Vietnam Women's Memorial Project Kicks Off Countdown to Dedication in 1993
Date: 18 Nov 92 16:21:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: das.1992Nov18.162148.28589
Reply-To: stewart@geophysics.harvard.edu
Organization: Dept. of Earth & Planetary Sciences, Harvard University

In article 2708@mdcbbs.com, rivero@mdcbbs.com (Michael Rivero) writes:
>In article <1992Nov11.232907.8586@r-node.gts.org>, ndallen@r-node.gts.org (Nigel Allen) writes:
>|> Here is  a press release from the Vietnam Women's Memorial Project Inc.
>|> 
>|>  Vietnam Women's Memorial Project Kicks Off Countdown to Dedication
>|> in 1993
>|>  To: National and Assignment desks, Veterans Affairs writers
>|>  Contact: Mary Beth Newkumet, 301-649-6565, or
>|>           Diana Hellinger, 202-328-7253, for the
>|>           Vietnam Women's Memorial Project Inc.
>|> 
>|>    WASHINGTON, Nov. 11  -- On Thursday, Nov. 12, the Vietnam 
>|> Women's Memorial Project (VWMP) will kick off its countdown 
>|> to dedication of the first memorial in the nation's capital to 
>|> honor American military women.
>
>
>   Overall, it sounds like a good idea. I have one question, however.
>The "Wall" honors American men who _died_ in the line of duty. 


>
>  It seems that if a monument is to be erected to Vietnam veterens who
>served in the war (but did not die) that it should extend to both genders.
>Otherwise it's a sexist and exclusionary monument. 

But if the other monument only honors men, thent THAT'S a sexist and
exculsionary monument as well.  For instance, my mother's sister who
was killed in Laos in 1968 is not on the wall.  What you're saying
here is that if the wall is for people who DIED then it's OK to 
exclude women, but if the wall is for people who served, then you
have to include men?  It seems a little lopsided to me, man.
Xref: sparky soc.women:19850 alt.feminism:4666 soc.men:19521
From: wendy@sundown.mil.wi.us
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Self Appreciation (was: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Date: 18 Nov 92 15:33:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: mr.1992Nov18.153348.6594
Distribution: usa
Organization: Nowhere
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Peter Chrzanowski (chrz@tellabs.com) wrote:
>  
> Has someone made claims of superiority?  Where, when?  Or do you mean
> that because I consider this book is not only hateful but also laughably
> bad then I must be a racist, sexist pig?
> 

Peter,

This is turning into a flamewar. You are showing exactly how males act by
having to win this disagreement. You want to win???? OK, You win! You can
now go off and say that you won..... 

You may well be a racist, sexist pig.  I don't know you well enough to say. 
Maybe someone else here on the net could enlighten us.

I will say this. You are looking at this from one side only. I am starting
to see it from the other side. Whether you believe it or not, women are 
looked down upon in this society. Very few men treat them as equals. 

I will no longer discuss the book with you. If you want to discuss 
transexual issues, I will. But I think it's useless for us to continue
discussing the book. 

Wendy
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Sexist or Non-Sexist?
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 00:17:07 GMT

In article <1992Nov14.170113.26096@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>Then why are you worried when first-year students are called first-year
>students?

First-year undergrads have been called frosh here at Stanford for
years.  I don't think any of them dislike it.

When I hear first-year, I think of first-year grad students, who _are_
often called the first-years in many departments.

Xref: sparky soc.women:20109 soc.men:19743
From: dwelch@mpd.tandem.com (Dan Welch)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Date: 21 Nov 92 18:34:30 GMT
Followup-To: soc.women
Organization: Tandem Computers (MPD) Austin, TX

In article <robert.722215826@labyrinth> robert@informix.com (Robert Coleman) writes:
>slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:
>
>>Part of the function of advertising is to create a desire on the part 
>>of the buying public for a particular product.
>	The commercial can't make me desire the product.  All it can do is let
>me know that the product exists, so that I can try it, and evaluate it for
>the things that really matter.

If you really believe this, and if it's really true, you're a pretty amazing
person.  Or else, completely and utterly dispassionate.

You've never seen a car commercial and gone, "Wow, what a great car, I wish
I could afford one"?  I'm not saying that the commercial made you go out and
put yourself in debt, but can you really say that it didn't create a desire
in you?

I think that commercials are creating desires in you each and every day.  I
also think you're confusing your ability to resist these desires with a
complete absence of them.  They are there; you are just able to overcome
them, better than most perhaps.

Daniel Welch
From: dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Vietnam Women's Memorial Project Kicks Off Countdown to Dedication in 1993
Date: 18 Nov 92 18:02:20 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: redondo.sw.stratus.com

In article <1992Nov18.162148.28589@das.harvard.edu>, stewart@geophysics.harvard.edu (Cheryl Stewart) writes:
> In article 2708@mdcbbs.com, rivero@mdcbbs.com (Michael Rivero) writes:
> >In article <1992Nov11.232907.8586@r-node.gts.org>, ndallen@r-node.gts.org (Nigel Allen) writes:
> >|> Here is  a press release from the Vietnam Women's Memorial Project Inc.
> >|> 

[deleted]

> But if the other monument only honors men, thent THAT'S a sexist and
> exculsionary monument as well.  For instance, my mother's sister who
> was killed in Laos in 1968 is not on the wall.  What you're saying
> here is that if the wall is for people who DIED then it's OK to 
> exclude women, but if the wall is for people who served, then you
> have to include men?  It seems a little lopsided to me, man.

No, Cheryl.  What is lopsided is the ratio of men killed in Vietname to
women killed there.  What was it, something like 50,000 to 8?

I was under the impression that the original memorial was *not* excluding
women; that if a woman died, her name was eligible for the wall.  In any
event, I feel there is a difference between a memorial for all veterans who
did X, but the few women who did X are unofficially discriminated against
getting recognition; and a memorial for all women who did X.  Again, if anyone
knows for a fact that women vets who died were or were not eligible for the
memorial, I'd like to know for sure.


-- 

#include <std_disclaimer.h>

Dan S.
Xref: sparky soc.women:20107 alt.abortion.inequity:5240 talk.abortion:49031 alt.feminism:4836 soc.men:19741
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father
Date: 21 Nov 1992 18:48:10 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:

>peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes...

>MLP> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:

>MLP> >Uncertain parentage should be made certain.

>MLP> How???

>DNA testing...

Better buy stock in Syntex and Genetech...
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men