HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Tim.Bowden@p0.f509.n216.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Tim Bowden)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Looking for [less] Mr Goodbar
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 12:43:31 PDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:216/509.0 - Fort Knox, Felton CA

> Sorry, but after a couple of these posts, I felt myself
> being magically transported back through time to my grade
> school playground where our favorite pastime was "cut-downs"
> and I just couldn't resist in joining in.  :b  :)   Haven't
> done that in, well, at least a few years.


One of the really depressing discoveries I made on connecting
to this group and similar was the high instance of the same
testosterone-riddled jejune jerkism I had hoped to escape by
bridging my provincial DOS operation to the netstream.  Do
you know currently in this group an overwhelming percentage of
the contributers are (more and less) apparently male?  Now,
why is that, d'ya suppose?

-Timmie

--- Echodor 3.10a
 * Origin: FORT KNOX in Felton, CA - 408-335-4229 - (1:216/509.0)
--  
Tim Bowden - via FidoNet node 1:216/509
UUCP: {scruz|gorn|netcom}!{comix|gorn|cruzio}!clovis!509.0!Tim.Bowden
GATEWAY: tcbowden@clovis.felton.ca.us

  Only three things have ever astonished me:  a dream within a
  dream, voices in an empty room, and fire the color of ice.
                        Silvina Ocampo
Xref: sparky soc.women:8885 soc.singles:11072 alt.fan.q:402
From: mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mikeey J. Lin)
Newsgroups: alt.personal,soc.women,soc.singles,alt.fan.q
Subject: Re: LOOKING FOR NANCY @ BRANDEIS UNIV. IN WALTHAM, MA.
Date: 12 Apr 92 22:12:40 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1992Apr11.015300.12035@access.digex.com> deja-q@access.digex.com (Lin Yon Q) writes:

>In article <1992Apr8.045351.18869@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mikeey J. Lin) writes:
>>	"Look slime! Just because no women will speak to you doesn't mean
>>that there can't be communication between the sexes. Hopefully, with education
>>and communication ignorant and narrow-minded people, and I use that term 
>>loosely to include you, will be able to cope with today's society. Perhaps
>>if some tolerance, communication, and understanding were exercised by all
>>people we would not have quite as many conflicts in society."

>> 					ajg4_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu

>DUH!  Some sniveling little college twit who believes that the ultimate
>in communication between the sexes means chasing after women over the net
>because they are just too thick to understand that if she wanted to talk
>to him, she has the raw talent and ability to use the goddamn telephone
>instead of subjecting a few million people to his drivel.  Give it up
>dweebo and try solving your problems without typing at a computer screen.
>Or are you afraid it might make a difference in your life?

	You really have a way with words. Speaking from personal experience?
	
>Is this someone who hasn't figured out how to post all by itself yet?
>Someone in your BASIC class perhaps? 

	Nope. He was my Chem TA. I'm sure you'll hear from him soon. 
It's too easy to flame away at someone such as yourself twice in one day
so I'll leave it up to him. I prefer challenges...

							Mikeey
						 

>Q
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.mentalk.abortion
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: A rather peculiar letter.
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 05:28:32 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.225516.18052@sdd.hp.com>
regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>Elizabeth, we've discusssed this before in email, so I won't go into it
>in great depth here, but I just wanted to say for the net at large that
>I'm not convinced Adams or Jefferson would agree with you on what
>the protection for non-enumerated rights was "meant" to be for here.

Fair enough.

--
"We should look to the mind, and not to the outward appearance."   - Aesop

Pro-Choice       Anti-Roe                             - E. Elizabeth Bartley
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: S7985203@deimos.ucc.umass.edu ( )
Subject: CFV: soc.penpals
Organization: University of Massachusetts at Amherst
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 02:53:01 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

Name of Newsgroup:  SOC.PENPALS

Status:  UNMODERATED

Charter:  This newsgroup is to make it possible for people on the net to 
	make friends and penpals.  This will also give people a chance to have 
	correspondents in other places of the world, which is helpful for 
	travel and tourism.  Included will be postings of information about 
	people interested in becoming a penpal and also general 
	information/questions about certain geographical locations are also 
	accepted.     


Rationale:  It's true that you can meet people through other newsgroups but 
	you do not always have the guarantee that they will want to 
	have penpals.  Having this newsgroup makes it easier to make 
	friends without possibly searching endlessly.  As one person said 
	to me during the rfd: "You can't tell much about a person from an 
	opinion or two in a post".  In soc.penpals, people would list post 
	some of their interests so others would get an idea about whether 
	they'd like to correspond with them or not.  Also, this newsgroup 
	has often been compared to alt.personals.  There is one major 
	difference.  There would not be any anonymous postings.  As one 
	person put it:  "...a lot hide behind anonymity to spew abuse and 
	intolerance". Therefore, without the anonymouse postings, we may get 
	rid of some of that.

Voting:  Please send all votes DIRECTLY to:
		
			s7985203@tethys.ucc.umass.edu


	Votes that are posted on the net WILL NOT be accepted.
	Please also be very specific as to whether you are voting FOR or 
AGAINST this newsgroup.  It is suggested that you word it similar to the 
following:
	   I vote FOR soc.penpals 
		   or			
	   I vote AGAINST soc.penpals

also accepted:  I vote YES for soc.penpals
			or
		I vote NO for soc.penpals

Please also include your name in your vote.


Voting Period:   All voting will end at 5:00 PM EST on APRIL 30, 1992!
		Any votes that are received after that time will NOT be 
		counted.		
		
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: puter@no1home.nashvil.ingr.com (Software Dude)
Subject: Sexism?
Organization: WHAT?
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 20:52:07 GMT

 kurts@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Kurt Strain) mentions...
>>   Feedback appreciated.
>
>Typical rad fem crap you found there.  If you post here, be prepared for it.
>They have no sense of humor, just a chip on their shoulder. 

Glad my name's not 'Chip'.
--
Puter	puter@no1home.nashvil.ingr.com "My favorite vanity plate - PHUQUE"
Xref: sparky soc.women:8819 rec.sport.basketball.pro:8039
From: lavellin@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Joseph Lavelline)
Newsgroups: soc.women,rec.sport.basketball.pro
Subject: Women
Date: 10 Apr 92 04:31:20 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network


Some girls like to buy new shoes and others like driving trucks and 
wearing tatoos.
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: more thoughts on a new slant to rape stats
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com
Date: 10 Apr 92 12:28:17 GMT
Organization: M&E (Division of EDS), Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: rivero

In article <1992Apr8.221523.13104@lmpsbbs.mot.com>, bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
> In article <1992Apr8.183415.12789@acsu.buffalo.edu> camurphy@acsu.buffalo.edu (Cindy) writes:
> 
> )i DO think of rape as terrorism.  as a MALE professor of mine has stated,
> )"rapists are the vanguard of patriarchy."  men are not "patriarchy".
> )patriarchy is a system.  
> 
> I probably mentioned this before, but the only study I've seen on this
> topic showed absolutely *no* correlation between 'patriarchy' (as
> measured by women's wages, women on the police force, women judges)
> and rape rates.  So, you can think of 'patriarchy' causing rape, but
> there is no evidence to actually support this position (that I am
> aware of) and at least some evidence to refute it.
> 

  Not that I have any way to know for sure, but somehow, in the middle
of an act of rape, I kinda doubt that what runs throgh the rapists mind
is ,"Patriarchy! Patriarchy!". Something more monosyllabic and less political,
perhaps.  :)




<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com Homo Cyberneticus-Computational Man  |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
From: kenneth@ducvax.auburn.edu
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: abortion is a women's issue
Date: 17 Apr 92 15:45:30 GMT

In article <1992Apr17.011218.2259@risky.ecs.umass.edu>, shortell@spock.ecs.umass.edu (Laurel L Shortell) writes:
> In article <1992Apr16.004943.2364@ducvax.auburn.edu> kenneth@ducvax.auburn.edu writes:
>>In article <carol.703398081@ee.uts.EDU.AU>, carol@ee.uts.edu.au (Carol Gibson) writes:
>>> I know this is going to raise hell - but what the hell..
>>> 
>>> ABORTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MEN!
>>
>>It has everything to do with men.  95% of Congress is male.  So is the
>>Supreme Court.  So is the President.  Congress makes the laws that govern
>>the country, the Supreme Court interprets those laws.  When women control
>>the Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Oval Office, it will no longer
>>be a man's issue.
>>
> 
> What you say does not address her statement. What you say
> addresses the issue of male legislation concerning abortion.
                         ^^^^
Not a male issue? Doesn't address her statement? My point is as long as there
are men in government, it will stay a man's issue as well.  Other people
have already given their arguments, so I decided not to address those.

> Two different issues.

Not!

Ken
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: lundquis@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Jill Lundquist)
Subject: Re: short marriages
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 00:39:14 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.232250.15971@adobe.com> kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall) writes:
>
> Marriage is not a guarantee that the relationship will continue to be 
> nurtured and grow.  Marriage is not a guarantee of love and forever
> togetherness.  
>
> With my unmarried partner, we are very conscious of our relationship and
> we both continue to nurture it.  It is a very Give-Give type of relationship
> where we do not take each other for granted and we Know that we both Want to
> be together.  We have made a personal commitment which is every bit as strong
> and meaningful as marriage vows.  I agree that this is not for everyone, but
>
> I wish there was a ritual along with the marriage ceremony to help couples
> realize that the "marital step" is just the FIRST step in building the
> relationship.

Ah, you should have been at my stepsister's wedding!  The man who 
performed the ceremony made this point again and again.  He brought
two roses and asked each of them to take one and look at it closely.
Each rose, he said, had imperfections, and each rose was utterly
unique.  He talked a lot about the day-to-day work that goes into
making a marriage, and I think most of the people there really
got a chance to think about what he was saying.

I had never been to a wedding that didn't bring out my cynical side
in full force before that one, but I was sitting there at the
piano crying my eyes out.  My page turner was a friend of mine who
knows how much I dislike weddings, and he told me later that he
was astonished to see that.  Hmph, I shouldn't admit this in public;
one of my coworkers might see it, and then my Scrooge quotient will
go down.  ;-<

-- 
Jill Lundquist		lundquis@spot.colorado.edu		DoD #882
From: cnh5730@maraba.tamu.edu (Charles Herrick)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Men Are Not Cost Effective
Date: 8 Apr 92 22:20:02 GMT

Melinda Shore writes

> In article <1992Apr7.111239.29887@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>,  
nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (nathan engle) 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,
> > sounds like a radical feminist organization.

> What I'd like to know is why Nathan thought soc.women was
> an appropriate place for the original posting.  

1) obviously Nathan wasn't the original poster

2) it is important for you women to know that men are aware of the  
hideously-ugly things some of you and your "sisters" are saying about us.  
More and more, we are begining to keep track of your misandry.

3) If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.  
Therefore you'd better get up and rebuke your bigotted sisters or you WILL  
be held responsible for them.




Newsgroups: soc.women
From: anne@cco.caltech.edu (Anneliese Lilje)
Subject: Re: A guy wants your advice
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 16:36:26 GMT

In article <MAILQUEUE-99.920406213442.256@caedm.byu.edu> MURILLOM@CAEDM.BYU.EDU ("Martin Murillo") writes:
>
>I have a question for you girls:
>
>I just sent some red roses to a person whom I don't know very well,
>I just see her sometimes and interchange some words and that's all.
>I noticed she was kind of interested in me because her looks and the
>questions she asked to me, well, I think she was kind of interested
>in me.  Now I don't know what to do, I don't know wether I should
>tell her that I was the one that sent the roses or just wait for some
>time.
>
>What I want to know is how would you feel if you were in her position.
>Notice that this is a question of a shy guy that does this for the
>first time; now I don't know what to do.  I like her and I'd like to
>begin a relation with her.....what I was trying is to be polite and
>I gess impress her.

So. How sweet. My advice...wait a bit and see about a reaction.
Also, just be your friendly self and let the friendship bloom
naturally into a relationship

anne
.


>
>I'd like to have your opinion....heeeeeeelp!
>please send me e-mail to
>
>murillom@caedm.byu.edu


Newsgroups: soc.women,rec.arts.books
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Instant Yuppies (was: Concordia University openly practices sex discrimination
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 23:04:12 GMT

In article <10391@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>My assertion "generally" was that there was widespread support for
>child molestation in the gay community.  

Apparently, you have a funny notion of what "widespread" means, or else a
funny rule of inference for  deriving the conclusion that a phenomenon is
"widespread."

>I suspect it's a loud
>minority that has badgered the rest into silence ....

I suspect you badgered them into silence, actually. Every time a
(presumably) gay poster challenges your claims about NAMBLA and the
homosexual community, you badger and badger and badger.

The reason you want to identify NAMBLA with homosexuals in general, of
course, is so you can feel good about hating gays. It would be more
intellectually honest to simply admit that you hate and fear them;
honest hatred is a step or two nobler than an obsessive smear campaign.

>When you combine the vociferous support in soc.motss with the 
>appearance of the North American Man-Boy Love Association in 
>gay parades, it certainly does suggest that there's more than 
>trivial support for NAMBLA's activities in the gay community,
>doesn't it?

Only if you ignore the possibility that some gays tolerate the expression
of views that repel them personally. I support your right to march in a
parade, Clayton--I'd even go to court to protect it. But anyone who
concluded from my support of your right that I shared your views would be
an idiot.



--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,     |"Anyone who has obeyed nature by transmitting a piece
mnemonic@eff.org | of gossip experiences the explosive relief that
(617) 864-0665   | accompanies the satisfying of a primary need."
EFF, Cambridge   |          --Primo Levi
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: jbreen@arghouse.UUCP (Magnum)
Newsgroups: tcd.talk,soc.women,soc.men,talk.rape,talk.abortion,rec.arts.sf.misc
Subject: Re: A rather peculiar letter.
Date: 14 Apr 92 16:55:40 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: The Listening Post

> My idea of a compromise:
> 
> 	(1) Legal abortion to 14 weeks.
> 	(2) Legal abortion health of the mother
> 	(3) Legal abortion rape/incest
> 
> I still believe abortion is wrong but legalizing any action
> does not make it morally right. It leaves the decision to
> the mother.
I am Pro-choice and I agree with everything except:
(1) Legal abortion to 14 weeks.

I think 18 weeks is better number, The fetus' brain is still not funtioning 
at that point.

------------------
The Listening Post, San Diego, CA, USA  +1 619 563 1084
Opinions expressed are those of jbreen@arghouse.uucp.
From: michele@dgbt.doc.ca (Michele Guillet)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: gender "data-hiding" (vs. discrimination)
Date: 15 Apr 92 13:00:18 GMT
Organization: The Communications Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada

In article <1992Apr13.153241.1@mdcbbs.com> rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:
>
>  Needless to say, with a financial DIS-incentive like that, there is plenty
>of reason to live together and NOT get married. In fact, given the hassles
>inherent in marital breakups, the only reason remamaning to get married
>is for the children (which is indeed why I proposed).
>
There is also the reason if the person you want to live with is from
another country. 

-- 
Michele Guillet 			The Communications Research Centre 
3701 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA, K2H 8S2	tel:613-998-2384
Internet: michele@dgbt.doc.ca
From: gwangung@byron.u.washington.edu (Roger Tang)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Carol Moseley Braun (was Re: Women in Politics)
Date: 9 Apr 92 21:30:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Apr9.213025.2757
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Apr9.085839.9356@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> rls@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu writes:
>	Again, please think about the following before flaming.  I will not say
>anything about the League of Women Voters (no "'s" after "Women") because I am
>not fluent with what they do very much.  But lets look at NAACP, as I know the
>basic idea, and it's easier to explain.

	Actually, it's not clear that folks DO know the basic idea...

>	If I give money to the NAACP to use in their scholorship program, who
>will they give the money to?  I think it is a good bet (100% is pretty good)
>that they will give it to a black student.  There may be white students that
>are more needy than the black student it goes to, but nevertheless, it will go
>to the black student.
>	Why?  Because he's black, of course ('colored' in the 50's style of the
>name).
>	Again, what's the difference between my organization and the NAACP? 
>None, all we've done is to apply a photographic negative, and reverse the
>color.

	Not really.

	You forget the context.  

	Certain problems face blacks and women simply because they are
black or female.  A race-blind/gender-blind solution won't solve these
problems simply BECAUSE they are race/gender blind.  

	Going back to Ms. Braun, the unhidden assumption here is that
minorities and women are not being heard in the Senate.  Now, as a
public official, how do you deal with the problem?   Hmmmm.....we have
some groups that aren't being heard....hey!  I know! I'll make a
special point to make sure their viewpoints are aired!

	Racist/sexist?  Oh, you could say so.  But then, if you then
dismiss this as a "bad" thing, you'll have to come up with a better
solution to make their voices heard in a situation that we assumed in
the beginning was racist and sexist.

	[And I don't accept the "arguement" that "two wrongs don't make
a right" as valid. We certainly make use of "two wrongs" all the time.
Use of deadly force, for example. The overiding principle here is what
does the least amount of harm in an allowable cause.]



-- 
	"I got into theatre originally to pick up girls. Unfortunately, all I
found were women..."
e-mail:  gwangung@milton.u.washington.edu
From: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: feminists are bad in bed
Date: 8 Apr 92 17:51:53 GMT
Reply-To: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Dept., Madison, WI

In <1992Apr7.142904.24757@risky.ecs.umass.edu> shortell@spock.ecs.umass.edu (Laurel L Shortell) writes:
>Laurel originally wrote:
>   
>  Some feminists are very good in bed and have
>  exciting sex with other feminists.

>valdes@bgsu.edu (oscar Valdes) writes:>>In article <dirk.701663653@vincent1.iastate.edu> dirk@iastate.edu (Sleepy) writes:>>>In <9685@bgsuvax.bgsu.edu> valdes@bgsu.edu (oscar Valdes) writes:
>>>>>	This is exactly what I hear.  However, I don't have first-hand
>>>>>knowledge. Their physical appearance and care is normally repulsive
>>>>>and I wouldn't want to have sex with them anyways.
>>>
>>>>     My, aren't we shallow ? Besides, I know many feminists, and none
>>>>of them are, IMHO, repulsive. Apparently, unlike you, a mind intrigues me.
>>
>>>	To paraphrase you, go back and read again.  My comment applies
>>>to a special type of feminist.  It is very specific, and it has
>>>nothing to do with intelligence.

>Excuse me? What specific feminist did you mention? You just
>said "Their" and "them", referring to the feminists in the
>first statement. NOWHERE did you say anything about
>specific feminists. You just generalized wildly. YOU go
>back and read again, right at the top of the article.

It all seems a little hard to believe anyway.  The specific feminist that
*I've* been in bed with was very attractive *and* very hygenic, *and* very
good *and* I hope she isn't reading this. :-)

-- 
Michael Rawdon
rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Department, Madison, WI

RandomSort:  It sorts numbers in constant order time, but does not guarantee 
correctness.
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: positron@caen.engin.umich.edu (Jonathan Scott Haas)
Subject: Sexism?
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 00:47:42 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

Soc.women, I would like your opinion on something.

Take a look at my .signature, specifically the quote in it. Now, I thought
that quote was pretty funny (it was an entry in a contest to come up with
the worst possible opening sentence for a novel). But shortly after posting
an article with my .signature, I got this in the mail.

------begin quoted text
From <name withheld> Fri Apr  3 15:01:46 1992
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 92 15:01:15 -0500
From: <Name Withheld>
To: positron@caen.engin.umich.edu
Subject: Re: Saddening error messages...
Newsgroups: umich.engin.eecs.class.380
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

What is the end analogy to a kiwi supposed to mean?  I think it is a bit
demented and very offensive.  What are you some kind of sexist pig?!
Get a life pal and leave the kiwi's at the market.
------end quoted text

Needless to say, I was shocked and appalled. What do you think? Is
my quote sexist? Am I off base, or is the person who sent me this letter?
Feedback appreciated.

--
__/\__  Jonathan S. Haas         | Jake liked his women the way he liked
\    /  University of Michigan   | his kiwi fruit: sweet yet tart, firm-
/_  _\  positron@engin.umich.edu | fleshed yet yielding to the touch, and
  \/    Positron @ Hero MUD II   | covered with short brown fuzzy hair.
Newsgroups: soc.women