HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nadel@attatash.aero.org (Miriam Nadel)
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 18:17:37 GMT

In article <726043390@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>In article <1993Jan2.205430.10619@panix.com> 
>gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>>It's a different issue.  Education and jobs involving
>>mathematics are manifestly social constructions.  Longevity
>>isn't (unless we socially knock a lot of people off).
>
>Have you ever thought about the following possibilities:
>
>1) Men are under social pressure not to show any weakness, and
>   therefore they seek medical help much later; sometimes too late.
>
Quite probably a factor.

>2) Men are under more pressure to be successful in work; extra
>   pressure can kill men younger.
>
Except that the studies of occupational stress have shown that women
suffer from more work-related stress than men.  Stress is primarily tied
to lack of control over your job.  In most offices, the employee under the
highest stress is the secretary.  Not to mention the stress of juggling
family and career.

Women in male dominated fields don't show any increase in heart disease.

>3) Men are under pressure to take more risky works.
>
This would affect work-related injuries, not longevity disease.  Nobody
questions that there is a higher death rate due to occupational accident
against men and nobody attributes this to biology.

>4) Older women have more money than older men and therefore they
>   have access to better medical care.
>
Older women in general have less money than older men.  

>5) There is more public assistance to women than men, and therefore
>   poor women get better medical care.
>
AFDC has nothing to do with medical care.  Poor women often don't get any
medical care.

Miriam Nadel

Xref: sparky soc.men:22489 alt.feminism:7009
From: michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Mysogynist Bullshit
Date: 10 Jan 93 20:52:38 GMT
Organization: University of Washington
NNTP-Posting-Host: glia.biostr.washington.edu

In <1993Jan9.223835.7200@msc.cornell.edu> hillyard@msc.cornell.edu writes:
>I wasn't going to post anymore, but I just couldn't pass this one up.
>From article <michael.726609978@glia>, by michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael):
>> In <1993Jan8.231725.20294@msc.cornell.edu> hillyard@msc.cornell.edu writes:
>>>From article <michael.726528708@glia>, by michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael):
>>>> In <1993Jan8.085654.6101@msc.cornell.edu> hillyard@msc.cornell.edu writes:
>[...]
>>>> 
>>>>>Might be farfetched (not too far I don't think), but I personally am not 
>>>>>constructing much.
>>>> 
>>>> Getting defensive?  I didn't even say you constructed anything.  I said
>>>> someone did.  However, defensiveness aside, the whole point is stretching
>>>> it, so I ask you again...  Don't you think you are stretching things?
>>>> (Don't worry, I won't laugh this time...  I'm too bored).
>>
>>>As above; not too far fetched.  Perhaps if you read what I write you would
>>>get less bored.
>> 
>> Oh my, now he claims to be aware of what I read and what I don't read.
>> I think we are *REALLY* stretching it now. :)
>> 

>Sorry, I didn't realize it could be a comprehension problem.  Here, I'll
>help you out.

>_______________________________
>Edited to help Michael understand why I might think he didn't read
>what I wrote.

>>>>>Might be farfetched (not too far I don't think), 

>>>>it, so I ask you again... Don't you think you are stretching things?

>>>As above; not too far fetched.

Michael doesn't need any help understanding this.  However I'll be happy
to point out where you jumped to a false conclusion.  You assumed because
I asked you a question twice that I didn't read what you said the first
time.  In reality I merely asked again because I considered your
answer rediculous.

I guess a condenscending attitude is yet another one of your stock in
trade tools.  However I might point out that insulting the person you are
talking to is not always a good approach to reaching any kind of result
to a conversation. :)

    Michael Stanley (michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu)
From: colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Utne Reader on Men and Women
Summary: Summary of UTNE READER articles to follow
Keywords: Utne Reader, Men, Women, etc.
Date: 4 Jan 93 19:33:43 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <24645@galaxy.ucr.edu>, starbuck@galaxy.ucr.edu (starbuck) writes:
> In article <1992Dec31.203415.11478@cbfsb.cb.att.com> colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:
> 
> -The new Utne Reader (Jan/Feb 1993) has a collection of articles
> -under the header "Men & Women  Can we get along?  Should we
> -even try?"
> -
> -There are too many articles for me to start typing them in (besides
> -copyright and the fact that Utne Reader has a login on Usenet) but
> -I recommend the issue and look forward to any discussion.
> -
> Marc, many of us do not have access to the Utne Reader so why don't
> you over time give us a summary of the articles one by one.
> 
> starbuck
> 

I'll try to work up a summary of the gist of the articles and sidebars,
bearing in mind that my summary might not agree with someone else.
Watch for it in a day or too.

As for not having access to UTNE, look for better bookstores or someplace
that has a massive (or less mainstream) magazine rack.  I have found it
at Brentano's and Bookstar.

marc colten
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: jgd@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (Jerome Donovan)
Subject: Circumcision, New facts
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 20:49:49 GMT
Keywords: beauty



I'm suprised that no one has so far mentioned anything 
about the beauty of the penis with its forskin intact.  
Personally I find every square inch of the male body 
attractive and that certinaly includes the foreskin.
The smells of a mans body can also be attractive in reasonable
amounts (choose your favorite), hair, underarm, smegma,
small amounts of dried urin or fecies.  

It's not that I'm "into" any particular smell, it's just
that over the years I've notice that all natural smells 
can enhance erotic activity.  I have a sensitive nose so
it's that much more important to me.

	Jerome Donovan nwpel!jgd 

BTW
Women, which part of your genitals would you like to
have snipped off when you decide have your sons bodies altered.


Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Mysogynist BS
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: na 
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 14:53:26 GMT

I deleted all of the debate to save bandwidth, but in the debate over
whether women are now more at risk for heart attack, or is it simply
that attention is now being paid to women, you might be interested
in the following.

The NIH will devote research to women's diseases in 1993, actually
concentrating on research on women. It seems that up until now,
women were simply considered to be *small* men. It has now been
*discovered* that women are *different*. I always thought research
boffins were a bit strange, I was aware that women were different
at about the age of ten. Guess some folks are slow learners.

I imagine that this research is due to the efforts of the director,
Dr. Healy. Sure hope President Clinton keeps her on.

REB


Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Mysogynist Bullshit
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 06:02:01 GMT

In article <93009.201320IO20746@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> <IO20746@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> writes:
>I think people seem to be missing the point of all of this

So how about filling everybody in?
 
>-the neutral observer


Rich
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: neigh-sayers
Date: 7 Jan 93 00:49:58 GMT
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <1993Jan6.093642.6439@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>and that Lisa was being foolish by trying to keep her home so that her 
>daughter wouldn't lose her pony.  They also kept bringing up and BRINGING

	Hell, I wish somebody'd buy me a damn horse.  I can even clean the
stall myself, not like some spoiled rich 10 year old...  Too bad my parents
never got divorced...
									wr
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Horsies
Date: 11 Jan 93 18:50:41 GMT
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <1993Jan10.091952.6510@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>Sorry to so seriously disappoint you.... But I grew up on a farm, live
>on a farm now, have three horses currently in my corral, have a dog, a
>cat, a parakeet and a rabbit.

	Then you should know (AND be willing to admit) that board for a horse
costs between 2 and 4 hundred a month, the animal itself probably cost 
more than two grand, and that 50 a month for feed is on the cheap side.
Remember, she didn't live on a working farm, but on an estate that included
stables and Ghu only knows what other little...neccesities...

	On the other hand, I can feed a large German Sheperd for 2
bucks a day, get the animal free at the Shelter, and keep him in my
.25 acre yard.  And I don't need 600 bucks worth of tack to exercise
him properly.

	Yeah, right, Daddy should keep her horse for her.  After all,
no little girl should grow up without her very own horse to ride.  I mean,
what are Daddies *for* if not to buy their little girls expensive gifts...

	Funny thing is, with the amount of money the ex-wife had, *she*
could have gotten the kid a horse (or three) all by herself...  Or the kid
could've gotten a job at a stable and worked for the privilge of riding,
the way those of us who _don't_ live on farms do.

Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism,soc.women
From: michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Mysogynist Bullshit
Date: 6 Jan 93 19:58:28 GMT
Organization: University of Washington
NNTP-Posting-Host: glia.biostr.washington.edu

In <1993Jan6.163239.28595@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.155059.26851@llyene.jpl.nasa.gov> julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas) writes:
>>Why do many look upon women like Hillary Clinton as horrible because 
>>she has a strong mind and career?  (I don't like her politically but 

>I think you have this turned around, everyone I know who has reservations
>about Hillary Clinton have reservarions -because- of her politics, not
>because "she has a strong mind and career". And she is now a very important 
>-nonelected- official. Had she run for President, do you really think
>that she would have lost -because- she is a women?

Oh my god!  I just realized that Clinton's cabinet is also nonelected.
For that matter, so is every cabinet for every president I can remember.
I guess its time for us all to panic now.  Horrible having all those
nonelected people advising the president.  I mean we KNOW he can't
make any decisions for himself.

Get real.  Lots of presidents wives have offered advice to the
president.  Reagan's wife corrected some of his faux pas and I don't
even think she had a degree (but then Reagan wasn't too with it most
of the time).  At least Hillary Clinton isn't receiving advice from an
astrologer like Nancy Reagan was.

I think the real issue here is that some republicans tried to use a
scare issue that the big bad strong woman was going to run the
country while poor little Billy sat in the corner.  Give me a break.

Seems to me its more likely that the next president will listen to all
advice offerred by his cabinet (and probably his wife) and then make
HIS decision according to HIS beliefs.

    Michael Stanley (michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu)
Xref: sparky soc.men:22548 alt.feminism:7061
From: schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Why men live 10% less?
Date: 11 Jan 1993 22:03:23 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

>In article <1993Jan8.210948.7399@speedy.aero.org> 
>nadel@attatash.aero.org (Miriam Nadel) writes:

[apparently from the Wall Street Journal]

>>But you might also note that many stress-related
>>conditions are as common among women as among men, including ulcers and
>>high blood pressure.  

Ulcers of both the gastric and duodenal forms were about twice as
common in U.S. men (as women) prior to the 1980s, for as long as
records exist.  The total incidence in the population has dropped
strikingly only since the H2 histamine blockers were introduced
(cymetidine, ramitidine, famotidine), and the sex ratio for both forms
has about equalized.  The situation is a bit more involved, however,
since the gastric ulcer rate has increased somewhat in women, perhaps
due to their recent entry to more risky (stressful?) situations (this
is from a 1989 paper in Digestive Diseases and Science).

As for hypertension and other cardiovascular conditions, I suggest you
exercise some care with the statistics.  These diseases occur primarily
in the older age-classes, which are dominated by women.  The raw totals
thus underestimate men's vulnerability, which is properly calculated on
an age-specific basis.  For example, total rates of myocardial
infarction are about the same in both sexes, yet men are about 3 times
more subject to MI.  This means that the male : female incidence
ratio, calculated for each age and averaged, comes close to 3. In other
words, if men's lifespan increased to equal that of women, their total
incidence of MI would increase from equality to nearly 3 times that of
women.

This point, however, is a bit too complicated for your average sound
bite.

-S. Schultz
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: sga@cray.com (Steven G. Anderson)
Subject: Perfume filled rooms
Reply-To: sga@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 7 Jan 93 09:58:19 CST


We've all heard of how the old-time male politicians picked the candidates in smoke
filled rooms.  In Minnesota, the smoke filled room has been replaced with the
female equivalent, a perfume filled room.  It seems that the State Democratic
Party has decided that their 1994 Senatorial candidate MUST be a woman.  No men
need apply.  The party is now dominated by feminists of both genders and they have
now driven me from the party, just as the far-right has driven moderates from the
Republican party.  `Tis a sad day indeed.

The oppressed have become the oppressors.  May the men in this State fair better
than the Bosnians at the hands of the Serbs.

Steve Anderson			144 more days of indentured servitude.


Xref: sparky soc.men:22452 alt.feminism:6982
From: sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell)
Subject: Info On Men's Groups Wanted
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 20:22:50 GMT

I am interested in learning more about the men's movement and/or men's
groups.  Im on a low budget and am less interested in ritual orientated
groups as well as groups with R Bly's mentality.  Any info on good
literature or groups in the Wash DC area would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks sfjr@wam.umd.edu
Steve R
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.atheism,alt.sex.wizards
From: clare@nynexst.com (Clare Chu)
Subject: Re: A few facts about circumcision
Organization: Nynex Science and Technology
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 17:16:18 GMT

In article <house.726207635@helios> house@helios.usq.EDU.AU (ron house) writes:
><RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
>
>>   Perhaps the best argument is that circumcision makes sense precisely
>>because it makes no sense.
>
>BOY!! Can I win a few arguments with THAT kind of reasoning!
>
>>Many communities  have irrational customs which
>>others, for obvious reasons, do not want to follow.  This means that this
>>custom becomes a mark of membership in the community and people within
>>the community can recognise and identify with other members of it and
>>help each other.
>
>What planet does this guy come from?!  Where I live (Australia) we don't
>go round inspecting each other's penises to decide which 'community' we
>belong in!  Perhaps I should watch out for a big culture shock if I ever
>visit America.
>
>Ron House.                 USQ
>(house@helios.usq.edu.au)  Toowoomba, Australia.

  I do believe that somewhere in the Bible, Jewish women were instructed
  to not sleep with a man who was not circumcised.  So they were supposed
  to go around inspecting penises.  So circumcision was a mark of membership
  in the community.
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.atheism,alt.sex.wizards
From: lile@netcom.com (Lile Elam)
Subject: Re: A few facts about circumcision
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 05:30:49 GMT

clare@nynexst.com (Clare Chu) writes:

>  I do believe that somewhere in the Bible, Jewish women were instructed
>  to not sleep with a man who was not circumcised.  So they were supposed
>  to go around inspecting penises.  So circumcision was a mark of membership
>  in the community.

Reminds me of a Dr. Zeus story about the creatures who had stars
on their stumics and the ones that didn't. They were the same 
except for the stars but they treated each other as if they were
from different planets.

People are so funny. I *love* being different- being myself. I love 
waring non-matching socks too.

-lile


-- 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lile Elam	    |  "Remember... No matter where you go, there you are."
lile@netcom.com     |		
Un*x Admin / Artist |			 Buckaroo Banzai
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Xref: sparky soc.men:22150 soc.women:22145 alt.feminism:6821
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Reproductive Technologies... (was: Re: Father Notification...)
Date: 5 Jan 93 01:41:46 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

[ who want, who gets custody ]
nadel@attatash.aero.org (Miriam Nadel) writes:
| It seems to me that there's a problem with anything one quotes.  It would
| not surprise me if a number of men who want custody don't pursue it because
| they don't think they have a chance.  
| 
| Any statistics on the subject are skewed by self-fulfilling prophecy.  While
| 78% of men who seek sole custody get it (and 82% of women who seek sole
| custody succees) this doesn't answer the question of what people want and
| who would have gotten custody in an actual dispute.

It strikes me as kind of odd that men are pessimistic about
their likelihood of success when the batting average of their
kind of person is .780.  Evidently we're not talking here
about contested custody; maybe those are the figures we need.
We might also find out how often Karl's nuclear weapon was
used.  Anyone got figures?
-- 

 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.child-support
From: sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell)
Subject: Re: Circumcision, New facts
Keywords: beauty
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 22:12:04 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.204949.614@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> jgd@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (Jerome Donovan) writes:
>
>
>I'm suprised that no one has so far mentioned anything 
>about the beauty of the penis with its forskin intact.  
>Personally I find every square inch of the male body 
>attractive and that certinaly includes the foreskin.
>The smells of a mans body can also be attractive in reasonable
>amounts (choose your favorite), hair, underarm, smegma,
>small amounts of dried urin or fecies.  
>
>It's not that I'm "into" any particular smell, it's just
>that over the years I've notice that all natural smells 
>can enhance erotic activity.  I have a sensitive nose so
>it's that much more important to me.
>
>	Jerome Donovan nwpel!jgd 
>
>BTW
>Women, which part of your genitals would you like to
>have snipped off when you decide have your sons bodies altered.
>
>
I think you have a differnt view of circumcision then most.  It isnt mutilation,
It is done for health reasons.  That is why society as a whole does it now instead of just the Jews.  If it was mutilation your "Btw" comment was uncalled for
since women dont "have it done to their sons".  Judiasm, a male dominated 
religion started it, probally for health reasons, and a mostly male medical
est in America decided to start it themselves

Steve r

Newsgroups: soc.men
From: jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood)
Subject: Re: Reproductive Technologies... (was: Re:
Reply-To: jsw@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 4 Jan 93 00:37:55 CST

In article 1i7slkINN7h9@gap.caltech.edu, peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>
>>However, what I was thinking of was this: insisting that
>>49% of custody go to men may run into the question of
>>whether 49% of the men _want_ custody.  Considering the
>>implacable resistance to paying child support shown here
>>and elsewhere, I have the idea that a good many men might
>>not consider your proposal a boon if the luck of the draw
>>smiled upon them.  Take care: you may be giving ideas to
>>the devious witches on NOW's General Staff for yet 
>>another plot.
>
>Deviousness aside.  Gordon, it assumes that the percentage
>wanting custody among men and women is equal, although not
>specifying the percentages.  I have no idea whether that 
>assumption is valid.  Can anyone out there quote a study?
>
>-- 
>
>                                                --  Michal
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Of course there's no reason!  


No study has been done. It is often cited by women's groups that men
do not seek custody in divorce cases. They like to champion the idea
that divorce and child custody is contested in less than 10% of the 
cases. Reality says that a man when confronted with divorce papers,
(Henn. Co. Stats of 1987 indicate that 83% of divorce cases were filed
by women) doesn't fight. His chances are extremely small and very 
costly; win or lose. Ask any divorce attorney.

 My divorce attorney told me, "unless ya got pictures of her shoving
cocaine up the children's asses with a dildo... ya don't have a snow
ball chance in hell of winning a custody battle. I'll also need 
a 30 grand retainer.....".

 Now what study is going to help you with your question?



Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.feminism