HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: How Strong Should a Man Be? and RESPECT!
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 20:43:42 GMT

In <1993Jan11.095245.1@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz> quirke_a@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz writes:

>jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton) writes:
>>K. Roper <ROPERK@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:

>>>  Strong enough to carry my purse in public and resist making
>>>    stupid comments.
>  
>> A guy with two purses is a sissy.

The real reason why guys carry "purses" in Europe is quite simple;
a) they hold more, and b) with European tailoring, I defy anyone
to get a wallet in the back pocket of the pants without something
tearing. Having bought two suits in London from a tailor who IMHO
must have done Baryshnikov's tights.	

>   Them's fightin' words, Jimmy, m'lad !
>   Shall we say garter belts at ten paces, hmm ?

>Tony Q. (Standing up for his fellow sissys !)

REB

Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
From: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Subject: Re: Mysogynist Bullshit
Originator: hillyard@tiger.msc.cornell.edu
Reply-To: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell-Materials-Science-Center
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 23:17:25 GMT

From article <michael.726528708@glia>, by michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael):
> In <1993Jan8.085654.6101@msc.cornell.edu> hillyard@msc.cornell.edu writes:
>>From article <michael.726478187@glia>, by michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael):
>>> In <1993Jan7.013255.6170@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).

[Hmmm.  When I get bored I don't bother posting.]

As above; not too far fetched.  Perhaps if you read what I write you would
get less bored.

[...]
> 
>>Assuming a good four years are you?  I don't think I'm as optimistic as you.
> 
> No, I make no assumptions about the next four years in terms of how good
> a job the president will do.  I am however making an assumption that the
> presidents wife will not have any bad affect on matters and that maybe a
> few people will notice that fears in that reguard were the subject of
> pure paranoia.

Hillary has already been presented as someone who will have a hand in the 
administration, and therefore is going to share in whatever blame or credit 
is given; not somehow judged on different criteria.  As, for example, Babara
Bush was, who had her own projects and wasn't perceived as having a hand in
policy (whether she did or not).

[...]
> 
>>By the way, why is Hillary viewed as this 'strong' women?  She seems to
>>have ridden her husband into political office just as every other First
>>Lady has (and unlike many others in this 'year of the woman').
> 
> Its because she has a degree and her own opinions.

You mean like Quayle's wife?

The criteria seems quite easy to meet.  I imagine most politicians wives do.

SEH
Xref: sparky soc.men:22378 alt.abortion.inequity:6336 alt.feminism:6922
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited
Date: 8 Jan 1993 08:07:50 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:

>In article <1i7uatINN7ph@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:

>>>If she wants 18 years of child support, then the father should be notified
>>>of the pregnancy. Otherwise the man has no say. After birth, all she has to
          ^^^^^^^^^
>>>do is to take hime to court, it is too late a joint decision. 

>>The father has no say whether or not he is notified of the pregnancy.
>>As the law currently stands, one conception has occurred he is obligated
>>to support the child if it is born (unless he and the mother *both*
>>agree to put the child up for adoption.)

>>>If she wants to raise the child herself, she need not
>>>notify the father at all. If she wants child support, then the father has 
>>>a need and a right to know about the pregnancy.

>>No, he has a need and a right to know about the birth.
                                                  ^^^^^
>By what twisted logic does the women have some moral right to keep the
>pregnany secret, then claim financial compensation for the birth of the
>baby (the -result- of the pregnanct)?

This is my logic (the reader may judge for him/herself upon it's twistedness):
It is the birth (rather than the pregnancy -- which may be miscarried or 
aborted) that triggers the man's financial obligation.  Therefore, it is of
the birth (rather than the pregnancy) of which he needs to be aware.  
(Although I still feel that father "notification" is redundant.  If he's 
being sued for child support then he already knows, and if he's not then
he can easily find out about the birth because it's in the public record.) 
-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Xref: sparky soc.men:22474 alt.feminism:6993
From: Darrell.Cadwallader@f363.n363.z1.fidonet.org (Darrell Cadwallader)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: How come?
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 93 18:50:00 PDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:363/363 - <Orlando Super Syst, Orlando FL

wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie) writes:
 
> How come if you go out to lunch with a bunch of men, you get
> the check and it's, like, forty bucks so you go "Right, 10 bucks each,
> I'll leave the tip" but if you go out to lunch with a bunch of *women*
> it's, like, "Well, *I* had the chopped liver and the small ice tea so
> I owe $4.97" and "*I* didn't have any dessert so I only owe $3.23" and
> so on until you're waiting for someone to whip out the ol'
> Hewlett-Packard with 59 programmable functions and figure it out to the
> 9th decimal place? Why is that, huh?
 
At least in this scenario the women paid their tab... my ex-wife used to go
out with her friends at work on a twice-weekly basis. When the bill came,
the women would give my ex their portion of the bill and she would sink it
all on plastic.
 
No big deal, you say. Perhaps, except in her case she spent the loot on
other non-essentials and only paid the minimum amount due on the credit card.
By the time I discovered this trend, I was more than $12K in debt on high-
interest cards (naturally this wasn't the only way she got me into this
debt).
 
No you know why she's my ex-wife.
 
----
ARPA: Darrell.Cadwallader@f363.n363.z1.fidonet.org
UUCP: tarpit!tous!business!363!Darrell.Cadwallader
----
We've got provisions, and lots of beer, the
keyword is survival on the New Frontier....

--  
        Darrell Cadwallader  -  via FidoNet Node: 1:363/42
             UUCP:  -  ...tarpit!tous!business!363!Darrell.Cadwallader
             ARPA:  -  Darrell.Cadwallader@f363.n363.z1.fidonet.org
Xref: sparky soc.men:22451 alt.feminism:6980
From: michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Mysogynist Bullshit
Date: 9 Jan 93 19:55:06 GMT
Organization: University of Washington
NNTP-Posting-Host: glia.biostr.washington.edu

In <1993Jan8.223916.19702@msc.cornell.edu> hillyard@msc.cornell.edu writes:
>From article <michael.726529095@glia>, by michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael):
>> In <1993Jan8.080905.5595@msc.cornell.edu> hillyard@msc.cornell.edu writes:
>> 
>>>From article <michael.726477571@glia>, by michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael):
>>>[...]
>>>> 
>>>> How about ignore her or ask her to stop?  I don't think firing is
>>>> necessary.
>>>> 
>>>> I can see it now.  She just won't stop advising me.  Its been going on
>>>> for weeks.  I finally just gave up and just do what she says (yeah right).
>>>> *laugh*
>> 
>>>Yeah, living with a nag.  Its so much fun.  I don't know anybody who's
>>>blown up or capatulated when faced with the problem.
>> 
>> Was this a point?  If so, I don't see how it changes anything I said
>> and I still stand by it.
>> 
>Was your point that having someone you live with constantly telling you 
>something is easily ignored?  I disagree.  Stand by it if you like.

No, that wasn't even close to my point.  Try re-reading (the text is
still above).  My point (for the sarcasm impaired) was that even if
Hillary nagged him endlessly (a scenario I doubt to begin with) about
political issues, that Clinton wouldn't automatically capitulate.  As
a matter of fact, I think that a president (even a politician) would
have a little more integrity than that.  I think he'd vote what he
believed.  And I think Hillary would respect that.

Just out of curiousity, how is it that you continually misunderstand
people with such a wide degree of variance?  Is this something you
do on purpose as a "tool of an argument?"  Or is this something you
just can't help?

    Michael Stanley (michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu)
Xref: sparky soc.men:22421 alt.feminism:6950
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Mysogynist Bullshit
Date: 8 Jan 93 21:12:48 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems

In <michael.726478187@glia> michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael) writes:

>In <1993Jan7.013255.6170@msc.cornell.edu> hillyard@msc.cornell.edu writes:

>>As far as a divorce, I'm not sure I would like the president of the United 
>>States to be having marital problems while in office--although who get
>>custody and the division of property would probably be of great interest to
>>the net.

>Fascinating.  Now someone is assuming that Clinton's wife will give
>Clinton advice.  The advice won't be taken, and then marital problems
>will ensue.  My aren't we constructing a whole future scenario.  Lets
>get real here.  Don't you think you are stretching things just a little?
>*laugh*

>Still, our country survived and prospered (except for the deficit which
>may have helped pay for the prospering) for two presidential terms
>under an idiot for a president.  If we can survive that, I hardly think
>the first president married to a strong woman with a real degree is
>going to kill us (well perhaps there was another one like this.  but I
>don't recall him).

Well, I don't recall him either (I'm not quite that old) but in Woodrow
Wilson's term of office, I understand that he was pretty much incapacitated
during the last year or so. His wife went to great lengths to hide this
fact from the public and pretty much took his place. At least to the
extent possible, and aparently got away with quite a bit. But we're
still here.

>Who knows.  Maybe this presidential term will go a ways towards calming
>some of the paranoic fears some men seem to have out there about strong
>women.

>    Michael Stanley (michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu)

REB
Xref: sparky soc.men:22468 alt.feminism:6989
Organization: University of Maine System
Date: Saturday, 9 Jan 1993 20:13:20 EST
From: <IO20746@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Mysogynist Bullshit

I think people seem to be missing the point of all of this

-the neutral observer
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: horwath@rtsg.mot.com (George Horwath)
Subject: Real Men want Real TV
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 19:36:22 GMT

From the January 9, 1993 issue of TV Guide - an
article by Greg Fagan.............

----------------------------------------------------------
MACHO MEN HAVEN'T DIED...
      ...THEY'VE GONE INTO SYNDICATION

Looking for a few good men? Try your local TV station,
where action heroes are back with a vengeance.

Real men want real TV: fists, cars, ricocheting bullets,
and the good guys always coming out on top.

It's the sort of thing the networks did well for years.
But now, all the best prime-time action is in syndication,
rather than on the big three or Fox. The testosterone
level peaks this month as "The Untouchables" and "Kung Fu:
The Legend Continues" debut on independent stations. Both
of these trample ground well worn by TV macho men of yore.

 [description of several shows deleted]

But the networks don't seem too interested in the macho
boom, says Gregg Maday, senior vice-president of production
and development for Warner Bros. TV, the company behind
"Kung Fu" and the sci-fi actioner "Time Trax". It's the
simple economics of network prime time -- with its
quick-kill cancellations and emphasis upon broad-based
appeal -- that precludes such high-cost, hour-long
action-adventure shows. "The studios are now able to make
money syndicating the shows directly to local stations,"
where there is a greater demand for specialty programming --
especially material that appeals to the 18- to 49-year-old
male viewer so often alienated by sitcoms and
women-in-jeopardy TV-movies.

Today's rugged renaissance also owes some of its muscle
to a growing market abroad for American TV. After all,
a "Kung Fu" hero's "A-iii-yy-ii," sounds the same here
as in France.

----------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,soc.couples,soc.singles
From: jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton)
Subject: Re: How Strong Should a Man Be? and RESPECT!
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 13:56:47 GMT

In article <93005.151253ROPERK@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> K. Roper <ROPERK@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>  Strong enough to carry my purse in public and resist making
>    stupid comments.
 
A guy with two purses is a sissy.
 
>
>  Strong enough to buy feminine hygene products when I ask him,
>    and to ask enough questions to ensure that he buys the
>    right things.
 
"Are these the extra thick goop absorbent?"
 
>
>  Strong enough to wear Spandex.  Strong enough to admit that he
>    looks good in tights.
 
You forgot clogs and leiderhausen.
 
>
>  Strong enough to admit that yes, women sweat, fart and belch.
 
Seesters?

>  Kim

 
================================================================================
 Steatopygias's 'R' Us.          doh#0000000005 That ain't no Hottentot.
 Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. DoD#564. There ain't no more.
================================================================================
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
From: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Subject: Re: Mysogynist Bullshit
Originator: hillyard@tiger.msc.cornell.edu
Reply-To: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell-Materials-Science-Center
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 08:56:54 GMT

From article <michael.726478187@glia>, by michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael):
> In <1993Jan7.013255.6170@msc.cornell.edu> hillyard@msc.cornell.edu writes:
> 
>>As far as a divorce, I'm not sure I would like the president of the United 
>>States to be having marital problems while in office--although who get
>>custody and the division of property would probably be of great interest to
>>the net.
> 
> Fascinating.  Now someone is assuming that Clinton's wife will give
> Clinton advice.  The advice won't be taken, and then marital problems
> will ensue.  My aren't we constructing a whole future scenario.  Lets
> get real here.  Don't you think you are stretching things just a little?
> *laugh*

Lets look at the order again.  
Hillary: I want to make a difference. (I don't think I'm assuming anything 
about Hillary giving advice.)
Somebody else:  I don't see any difference between Hillary and any other 
cabinet member.  
My response:  the difference is Bill can't get rid of Hillary if he doesn't 
like what she's doing.  
Someone else:  he can get rid of her by divorce.  
My response:  not something I find appealing.

Might be farfetched (not too far I don't think), but I personally am not 
constructing much.

[...]
> 
> Who knows.  Maybe this presidential term will go a ways towards calming
> some of the paranoic fears some men seem to have out there about strong
> women.
> 

Assuming a good four years are you?  I don't think I'm as optimistic as you.

By the way, why is Hillary viewed as this 'strong' women?  She seems to
have ridden her husband into political office just as every other First
Lady has (and unlike many others in this 'year of the woman').

SEH
Xref: sparky soc.men:22373 alt.feminism:6917
From: michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Mysogynist Bullshit
Date: 8 Jan 93 07:38:50 GMT
Organization: University of Washington
NNTP-Posting-Host: glia.biostr.washington.edu

In <1993Jan7.020139.3171@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:

>And I keep pointing out that prominent feminist posters here keep saying
>that this is not feminism, and that this is at odds with feminist ideals.
>I tend to believe that this attitude is far more prevalant than is claimed,
>although I will make no attempt to prove it. I will also note that none
>of the feminists who post here have really demonstrated that this is a
>rare extremist attitude either. The question is still pretty open.

Then you are either right, or you are paranoid.  Personally I believe
it is the latter.  If the question is still pretty open, its only open
in the minds of some people.  Its not open in mind.  And I can see why
you don't want to make an attempt to prove it.  Might be pretty
difficult to prove something like that (just as it would be to disprove
it).

>>I think the word "feminist" is starting to be overused and
>>some of the uses are giving a very bad taint to the whole thing.
>Since a feminist is anyone who calls themself a feminist, I do not
>see that you have any more basis for claiming that their attitude
>is not a basis for feminism than for claiming that your attitude is.

By that argument neither do you.  Well that loop was certainly a
productive line of logic to follow. :)

Seems to me that there is a possible argument that could be followed
here.  Certainly we all seem to agree that there are some people who
call themselves feminists who propose rediculous ideas and who seem
to dislike men.  Great.

Now, there are also people who call themselves feminists who want
nothing more than equality and fairness.  And guess what!  Most of the
feminists on this newsgroup seem to be of that group!  Wow!

Now why don't we stop talking so much about these others and start
discussing the real issues of equality.  Seems to me that delving overmuch
into the big bad feminists who hate men issue smacks of heavy paranoia.
I mean you don't REALLY think these so-called big bad feminists who
hate men are going to take over and subjugate all men tomorrow do you?
The paranoia doesn't even make sense when you think about it.

There are lots of productive issues that could be discussed.  Trying
to pull down the entire feminist movement because men are scared of
strong women isn't one of them.

    Michael Stanley (michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu)
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Utne Reader on Men and Women
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:20:28 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.203415.11478@cbfsb.cb.att.com> colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:

>In the first article listed above he talks about Sally Gearhart
>who in 1982 advocate "ovular merging" which merges two human eggs
>to produce only female offspring, bring the ratio to 75/25 (female
>to male) in one generation.  The author says "It's not genocide,
>exactly.  It's more like job attrition, the way employers cut back
>positions without actually firing anyone."  That's certainly a
>broadminded position.  

Elect her!  I'd be looking forward pretty happily to middle age
(surrounded by a 3-1 ratio of young women to old men...)    ;-)

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
From: chuckies@cs.mcgill.ca (Charles J Savoie)
Subject: Re: Mysogynist Bullshit
Organization: SOCS - McGill University, Montreal, Canada
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 04:04:14 GMT


Julie, could you please answer Hillel's 2 non-rhetorical questions in his
last post, as well as give us your comments about the Morgan case as
described by him, and the "violence against women" bill in congress
he mentioned, and show how it is gender blind?  I'm sure Hillel just
doesn't understand, but please put it in perspective for him and us.

Or did you purposefully avoid these questions because *you have no answer*?

Charles

-- 

,.. .  . .  . ,.. . . ... ,.. ,..   =====================================
|   |--| |  | |   |<   |  |-  `-.   Charles Savoie  chuckies@cs.mcgill.ca
`'' '  ' `''' `'' ' ` ''' `'' '''   =====================================
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: UTNE READER
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 14:00:19 GMT
Keywords: UTNE, men, women,

One thing I forgot to mention last time is that just about *everyone*,
including the guy from Texas and a few cartoons not related to the articles,
bashed 'Iron John'.  I was rather surprised and a little dismayed by this.
I associate this sort of bashing mostly with knee-jerk extremism.
To give an illustration, one cartoon had 'Backlash' on one side and 'Iron
John' on the other.

The bashing seemed to be mostly symbolic, as nobody actually had any quotes
from the book itself that they bashed, or even from the author.

The ironic thing, IMO, is that Bly seems to be mostly into psychological
analysis, and is more-or-less explicitly rejecting the sort of political
role that appears to be being attributed to him.

Still, I enjoyed reading the articles, even if most of the men's movement
side was watered down quite a bit from what one can see posted here on the
net every day.  (And the 'feminist' stuff wasn't watered down a BIT from what
one sees on the net -  IMO.) 

However, one usually does not see even this much sympathy towards the men's
movement in print - it is at least a start.

Newsgroups: soc.men
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Organization: mydog in exile
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 03:26:33 GMT

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).

pepke@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke) writes:
| Education and jobs involving mathematics are manifestly social constructions.
| Modern medicine, which just happens to be about as old as the time period
| during which women have outlived men, is manifestly a social construction.
| 
| Skill at mathematics may or may not be a social construction and may or may
| not be innate; it may even be a combination of the two.  Longevity may or
| may not be a social construction and may or may not be innate; it may even
| be a combination of the two.
| 
| Note if you can that I am not arguing for a particularly envrironmental or
| biological explanation for either phenomenon here.
| 
| >May I recommend that you not rely on echolalia as a method 
| >of argumentation?  
| 
| May I suggest that you occasionally take a break from your usual practice of
| only dealing with the most superficial interpretation of an opponent's 
| argument?  It really is tiresome.

Would you care to give me the deep interpretation of that
argument, then? 
-- 

 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,soc.couples,soc.singles