HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ari@world.std.com (Ari I Halberstadt)
Subject: Re: Makeup - a male perspective
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 18:55:38 GMT

In article <92098.121331JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu> JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu (Joy Haftel) writes:
>In article <654@nazgul.UUCP>, bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright) says:
>>o       (I'm going to get flamed for this!) Short hair historically has been
>>        a symbol of free men. Long hair has been a symbol of oppression
>My knowledge of the subject comes from the Bible, where Paul talks about
>men having short hair and women having long hair.  Somehow (and I am
>sure this is cultural) it was a "disgrace" for a woman to have short
>hair and for men to have long hair.

Men of various tribes of Native Americans had long hair, and were very
very angry when some people decided they had to be civilized and have
short hair. In some cultures, men must adorn themselves with makeup
and ornaments. Beauty is not only in the eye of the beholder, it
is also determined by culture. The thread about shaving hair being
done to prevent enemies in battle from getting a hold on the
person was very interesting. Apparently, soldiers were really treated like
dogs, Dobermans, that is. 
-- 
Ari Halberstadt       ari@world.std.com             #include <std/disclaimer.h>
Ramsgate (n.) All institutional buildings must, by law, contain at least twenty
ramsgates. These are doors that open the opposite way to the one you expect.
	-- D. Adams & J. Lloyd "The Meaning of Liff", p75.
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
From: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: What I Did at the Rally (Washington, 4/5)
Organization: Small Business Systems, Incorporated, Esmond, RI  02917
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 02:52:27 GMT

gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:

>If you can't get soc.feminism, your site
>is being oppressed.

Or the owner of the system doesn't want to pay for it, in which case
the readers are free to subscribe to any number of other pay services
which will happily provide it for a fee.

MD
-- 
--  Michael P. Deignan                      / 
--  Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com            /   I'm not a bigot,
--    UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd  /    I hate everyone.
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347              / 
Xref: sparky soc.women:8837 soc.men:8279
From: mike@maths.tcd.ie (Mike Rogers)
Newsgroups: tcd.talk,soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: A rather peculiar letter.
Date: 10 Apr 92 20:01:40 GMT
Organization: Sometimes found in a quite disorganized state in Trinity College
              Dublin. Freedom==Anarchy. My opinions are, like my total lack of
              organization, entirely my own fault.

In article <1992Apr8.180841.29895@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>, btwomey@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (william.tw0mey) wrote:
>fulfill my original request?  Where does the RC Church state that
>women's souls are lower than men's, or state that it embraces
>completely a teaching of Paul, Agustine or Aquinas which says as much.

So, you're saying that a religion can selectively choose its scriptures.
Bloody hell, noty much a religion then, is it?

>Prove that it does and I will start a schism Church. 

Will the laws on consummation remain the same? If so, count me out.
-- 
Mike Rogers,Box 6,Regent Hse,##EveryoneHasTheRightToFreedomOfOpinionAndExpressio
TCD,EIRE. <mike@maths.tcd.ie>##nThisRightIncludesFreedomToHoldOpinionsWithoutInt
###############################erferenceAndToSeekReceiveAndImpartInformationAndI
deasThroughAnyMediaAndRegardlessOfFrontiers...#10 UN Declaration of Human Rights
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,talk.rape
From: bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Men Are Not Cost Effective
Date: 11 Apr 92 20:59:13 GMT
Reply-To: bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright)
Organization: Zortech, Seattle

In article <VReZiB2w164w@gatecom.UUCP> jeffb@gatecom.UUCP (Jeff Breitner) writes:
/That's ok.  I'll get her with my proposed tax on dumb people.

In Washington State, we already have a stupidity tax. It's called the
state lottery. The stupider you are, the more lottery tickets you buy!

(The payoff ratios for the lottery are so incredibly bad, it is little
more than a tax. If any private gambling establishment had such a poor
payoff, they'd be put in jail.)
Newsgroups: alt.personal,soc.women,soc.singles,alt.fan.q
From: wasylik@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Michael Wasylik)
Subject: Re: LOOKING FOR NANCY @ BRANDEIS UNIV. IN WALTHAM, MA.
Organization: Ministry of Propaganda
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 08:06:01 GMT

In article <1992Apr5.210233.26542@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mikeey J. Lin) writes:
>In <1992Apr4.050521.17318@access.digex.com> deja-q@access.digex.com (Lin Yon Q) writes:
>
>>How bloody ROMANTIC can you get!  Get a clue.  She'd call if she was
>>interested.  Don't you read the little "warning" notice that you're
>>costing the net thousands of dollars by posting your dating woes for the
>>rest of the world.  Get a phone book, you idiot!
>
>>Q
>
>	Wow! I can't believe this guy "Q" here. This is the third time I  
>get a chance to "respond" to his "comments" here today. HEY DUDE! Hello...
>Is ANYONE home? Do you know anything about sensitivity? Or are you enjoy
>shooting people down? You're complaining about him using up the net money
>by posting his article? You hypocrite! Next time, try giving people more
>constructive criticisms, you'll make more friends that way. By the way, can
>you say "FRIENDS?" (yeah, I know, it's a new vocabulary word)
>
>						Mikeey
>
>PS Please keep your nasty comments out of BOTH soc.men and soc.women.


Let me guess...  you're still waiting for the Harmonic Convergence?
I know, I know... it can be so frustrating.  But let's all just hold hands,
rub our crystals, and maybe smoke some weed.  After all, we're all human,
aren't we, no matter how stupid we are.

-- 
Mw

[ Michael Wasylik                     ><    There goes the                 ]
[ wasylik@casbah.acns.nwu.edu         ><    neighborhood...                ]
From: bev@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu (Beverly Huntsberger)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: BRAless vs. PANTYless correlation?
Date: 6 Apr 92 15:11:09 GMT
Organization: Univ. of South Carolina, Columbia


	I don't know, but I  have heard that
	there is a correlation between tight
	jockey shorts and brainlessness.
bah
-- 
-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Just read his lips:
Now, he wants us to believe in the "tooth fairy".
-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov
Subject: Re: Makeup, Cosmo, Ms. and car paint.
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 22:36:07 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.133153.1@mdcbbs.com>, rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:
>   Helen Gurly Brown declared herself to be a feminist.

So what?  George Bush declared himself an environmentalist.

-- 
Daniel B. Holzman                    | Eight Words the Witch's Rede Fufill:
HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET                  | An It Harm None, Do What You Will
HOLZMAN@FNALC.FNAL.GOV.INTERNET      |
                                     | All Acts of Love and Pleasure are
Love doesn't subtract,               | Her Rituals
   it multiplies    - Heinlein       |
TEAM STAR Charter Member             | Saddam Hussein still has a job.  Do you?
Disclaimer:  Fermilab's far too large to have an opinion, let alone mine.
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall)
Subject: Re: Dating advice from men
Followup-To: soc.women
Organization: Adobe
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 16:43:35 GMT

In article <645@nazgul.UUCP> bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright) writes:
>In article <1992Apr2.225759.21441@adobe.com> kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall) writes:
>/ It was 16 years ago and I was very naive.  I felt guilty for rejecting him,
>/ for hurting his feelings.  I felt responsible for making him feel better.  
>/ I've learned much since then.
>
>I've asked a lot of women out, and have been turned down a lot. Ladies, if
>you wish to turn a guy down, please just say:
>	"No, thank-you."
>No explanation is required. If he presses you for why, just say:
>	"I don't think it would work out."
>I have respect for women with enough class to do that. Too often, a woman
>can't say no, and so:
>	o	Gives the "I'm busy" routine.
>	o	Gives you the wrong phone number.
>	o	Stands you up on the date.
>	o	Gives you some wretched semi-plausible excuse.
>These evasions are not appreciated...
>
>Sometimes, me and my male friends compare notes on who has gotten the most
>absurd excuse :-)
>
>P.S. If you have had more than two dates, a fuller explanation is expected.


 First, I whole-heartedly agree with you.  It is quite the feeling of freedom
 and empowerment to be able to say what you feel and what you want or don't
 want!

 But why a "fuller explanation", when the truth is simply that she feels the
 relationship would not work because he is not the right person.  I finally
 learned that there is usually not a "why" as a thought, but a "why" as a
 feeling.  It has to feel right - and it takes time to find that "right"
 feeling person.

 Two thoughts, or *generalizations* (don't flame me for *generalizing*, cause
 I'm already acknowledging that), came to mind from your response:

 1) Women *may* be afraid that if they vocalize a direct rejection, they
    may be hurt.

 2) Women may have experienced the frustration of saying, "No, I don't think
    it will work" and finding that the guy doesn't believe her.  I've had this
    experience.  (The "too aggressive" male?)

 3) (This is the strongest *generalization*:) Women are socialized to take care
    of relationships and feelings.  Men are socialized to not be vulnerable
    through their feelings - to "not feel".  This relates to what I wrote
    above - I felt guilty for doing something that would cause him hurt
    feelings because women are supposed to heal, not hurt.
   
 Janice Kendall    kendall@adobe.com    ...!{decwrl|sun}!adobe!kendall

        "Giving power and money to the government is like giving 
         whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."  

		- P.J. O'Rourke, former gulf war correspondant, summing
		up what he learned during two years of research on how
		our government functions.
From: sl55050@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (SauWai )
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Just A Survey For International Students, Like To Check It Out?
Date: 17 Apr 92 02:35:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: ux1.1992Apr17.023526.27607
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana


Hi,
	I'm doing a research about international students and their life in 
US.  I would appreciate it very much if you can take a few minutes and answer
the following questions as truthfull as you can.  Thank you very much.

PLEASE ONLY REPLY IF YOU ARE INTERNATIONAL STUDENT. THANKS.


1. Did you have any problems with communication?(language barrier) (Y or N)
2. Did you have difficulties meeting friends? (Y or N)
3. Did you encounter any major financial problems? (Y or N)
4. Did you experience any academic problems due to the new learning environment?(Y or N)
5. Have you heard of the counseling service for international students on you
   campus? (Y or N)

   Suppose you have heard about it and decided to go to seek counseling help:

6. Would you have a preference to have a counselor who has the same ethnic 
   background as you do? (Y or N)
7. Would you have a preference over the gender of your counselor? (Y or N)
8. Would you like to have "peer counseling"? (Y or N)
   (Have the same background as you)
9 Do you think it is helpful for you to adapt to the new enviroment :
       a. joining an ethnic organization (Y or N)
       b. having more cultural events taking place on campus(Y or N)
       c. going to workshops such as for stress manangement, studying skill etc.
	  (Y or N)
10. Would you seek help from the counseling center if you ever encounter
    any problems such as those mentioned above?(Y or N)
11. Do you have any inputs that you like to give?

Except for question 11, you can just answer y or n.  Once again I like to thank
	you for your time.

a) Country you came from:                 
b) Age:
c) Gender:
d) undergrad/grad/others:

THANKS AGAIN!

			 			Karen Lau
						s-lau3@uiuc.edu
From: rmz@uio.no (Bj|rn Remseth)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Men Are Not Cost Effective
Date: 14 Apr 92 17:00:21 GMT
Organization: Institute of Informatics, University of Oslo
Originator: rmz@holmenkollen.ifi.uio.no




>   "I'm not saying all men are criminals. But most criminals are, in fact,
>   men."

Another way of saying this  is that the legal  system in general holds
men responsible for their actions but not women.  Extreme actions in a
female set  of actions are in   general  not criminalized, but extreme
actions in the male set are.  Of course,  most of  the legal system is
designed by men ...
--
                                                    (Rmz)

Bj\o rn Remseth   !Institutt for Informatikk    !Net:      rmz@ifi.uio.no
Phone: +472 453466!Universitetet i Oslo, Norway !NeXTmail: rmz@neste.ifi.uio.no
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: bev@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu (Beverly Huntsberger)
Subject: Re: Carol Moseley Braun (was Re: Women in Politics)
Organization: Univ. of South Carolina, Columbia
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 17:28:10 GMT

In <BMCL7z.MKq@world.std.com> tparks@world.std.com (terry parks) writes:
>Could you, or anyone, tell us why they
				   ^
	referring here to The League of Women Voters

>maintain a gender-alienating name?
>They could change their name in a day and yet every day the purposely
>choose to keep their sexist title.

	aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhh  hhhaaaaaaaaa... haaaa, ha, ehe, hee.
	<shwew!> um.

	Uh, how old are you, anyway?

	Go ahead, call me age-ist! ;)

>>        Warped, twisted logic.

>Indeed.

	No, In Thought.

	Bev
-- 
-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Just read his lips:
Now, he wants us to believe in the "tooth fairy".
-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Loser, Loser, who's the loser (was: You want to win(Men's rights and Women's rights).
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 22:59:25 GMT

lisa@zeppelin.llnl.gov (Lisa Corsetti) writes:
>cnh5730@maraba.tamu.edu (Charles Herrick) writes:
>>
>>Don't ask me to feel sorry for her, when she's the one who's the  
>>loser.
>
>Excuse me, but my friend is anything *but* a loser.  Sure, she may have
>used poor judgement four years ago.  I suppose you lived your life mistake
>free.

Rumour has it that Herrick will die tomorrow and then rise again on
Sunday.

>  However, most of your mistakes may not have required drastic changes
>in your lifestyle.  I've lots of respect for *any* single mom.  I do not
                                                           ^^^
>feel sorry for my friend, but I *do* admire her courage and strength.
>The person who won't face up to responsibility *is* the loser!

Change the "mom" to "parent" and you have my wholehearted approval.

Newsgroups: soc.women
From: kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts)
Subject: Re: abortion is a women's issue
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 14:56:27 GMT

In <carol.703398081@ee.uts.EDU.AU> carol@ee.uts.edu.au (Carol Gibson) writes:

>I subscribed to this newsgroup because I wanted to discuss opinions
>with women - instead I find a bunch of men discussing abortion...

On the other hand, I subscribe to this newsgroup to talk about women.  Women
are free, and encouraged, to join in this discussion.  If you want to talk to
women about women subscribe to the FEMAIL mailing list.

Ken

Newsgroups: soc.women
From: gross@befvax.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: Petition on Gender Violence
Reply-To: gross@befvax.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago, Dept of Molecular Genetics
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 01:06:04 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.185349.23588@lmpsbbs.mot.com>, bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
>In article <1992Apr13.173624.1@mdcbbs.com> rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:
>
>)  I cannot sign this petition, even though I am opposed to violence against
>)women, on the grounds that this petition, as written, addresses violence 
>)against women to the exclusion of violence directed against men.
>
>Ditto.

I would sign it because 

a) it might prevent or limit violence against women, and violence against
anyone is horrible
and 

b) it would eventually benefit males in that certain once institutions
and practices are place to address violence against women, those same
institutions and practices can address violence against men, and make
it easier to do so.

(I say males intentionally, for it covers both men and boys).

But in signing it, I would point out that it only address part of the
problem.  

Leon Gross
I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV.
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore)
Subject: Re: Men Are Not Cost Effective
Reply-To: shore@tc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 14:03:21 GMT

In article <12026@tamsun.tamu.edu>, cnh5730@maraba.tamu.edu (Charles Herrick) writes:
> 1) obviously Nathan wasn't the original poster

Not obviously.
 
> 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.

Not me, buddy.  I'm a feminist and I have no feelings about
men one way or the other.  Just because I think you're a moron
doesn't mean that I think all men are morons.
 
I'm no more responsible for fringe feminists than I am for
Phyllis Schafly, or for that matter, than you are for the
Aryan Brotherhood.  Actually, judging from the 'content' (hah!)
of your posts, I'm probably less responsible for either 
than you are for the Aryan Brotherhood.  

Let's face it, both men and women are damaged by systemic
sexism.  We are, however, damaged in different ways.  By coopting
the language women use to talk about our experiences of sexism,
you merely look reactionary, insincere, and kind of stupid.
-- 
       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
From: lundquis@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Jill Lundquist)
Subject: Re: good books for young people on sex
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 01:05:49 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.162649.9243@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu> bev@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu (Beverly Huntsberger) writes:
>In <1992Mar31.230311.25078@adobe.com> kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall) writes:
>
>> what [Wardell Pomeroy, Ph.D., in _Boys_and_Sex_ and 
_Girls_and_Sex_] tells boys about girls
>> and the differences:  "Boys use love to get sex;
>> girls use sex to get love."
>
>	This old cliche needs to be closely examined
>	and carefully discussed when being given to
>	children, if the children are ever going to
>	be taught to enjoy their freedoms. I don't
>	mean to imply that it doesn't contain truth.
>
>	Unfortunately, it may still be as true as it
>	ever was (at least for children). Nevertheless,
>	it doesn't need to be this way. This (Mostly)
>	learned attitude about gender scripts can be
>	seen for what it is if we are willing to take
>	responsibility for the kind of society we want.

It may contain truth, but it is by no means true.  I am a
counterexample; when I was a girl, I pursued sex with great
interest.  It just so happens that I fell willy-nilly in
love a few times along the way, sometimes for the best, 
sometimes not.  

I was also quite lucky not to have been sexually abused
as a child as several of my friends were, and lucky that
I didn't encounter rape until I had already known what
good and loving sex was.  (No, I wasn't raped, but my 
then-boyfriend raped a dear friend of mine, and my ability
to trust or be intimate with men was badly shaken for
a couple of years)


>	IMO, that would be a society which allows both
>	girls and boys to experience the full, human
>	(natural) range of feelings and thoughts,
>	and to express themselves honestly.

Hear, hear!  Thank you for expressing yourself so eloquently
(and for saying something I agree with, of course :-).


-- 
Jill Lundquist		lundquis@spot.colorado.edu		DoD #882
Xref: sparky soc.women:8959 soc.men:8443
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: more thoughts on a new slant to rape stats
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com
Date: 13 Apr 92 14:19:07 GMT
 <1992Apr8.221523.13104@lmpsbbs.mot.com> <1992Apr10.005847.19505@daffy.cs.wisc.edu>
Organization: M&E (Division of EDS), Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: rivero

In article <1992Apr10.005847.19505@daffy.cs.wisc.edu>, albert@sevenlayer.cs.wisc.edu (Joseph Albert) writes:
> 
> I do know of a study (Neil Malamuth, UCLA) which found high positive
> correlations between per capita levels of sales of pornography and 
> rape frequencies.
> 

  During this recession, the per capita consumtion of pornography has
fallen drastically (along with a lot of other luxury items) while
the rape rates appear to remain steady. This suggests that the link
between porno and rape may be causal, related more to disposable time and
disposable income rather than to each other.




<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com Homo Cyberneticus-Computational Man  |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|    Anyone who manages to get from birth to death without getting at    |
|   least one ugly scar just wasn't DOING anything!                      |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Men Are Not Cost Effective
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 03:05:24 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.171519.21634@risky.ecs.umass.edu> shortell@risky.ecs.umass.edu (Laurel L Shortell) writes:
)In article <1992Apr10.213016.6513@watserv1.waterloo.edu> dmcanzi@watserv1.waterloo.edu (David Canzi) writes:
)>
)>Actually, men have been told that it is our duty, when another man
)>makes a sexist joke or remark, to rebuke him.  Ie.  We have been held
)>to blame for the attitudes of other men unless we actively applied peer
)>pressure to influence their attitudes in the "proper" direction.
)>
)
)If you are in a conversation with another man who makes
                                           ^^^ person
)sexist or racist or homophobic comments while talking
)to you, then you are implicitly supporting his views
)if you do not call him on it.

Nope.  You are remaining silent, not supporting their views.  If you think it
is in your best interests not to have an argument about it at that particular
time, there's no responsibility on your part to 'call him' (or her) on it.

I think one  should speak up only when one is actually annoyed by
the comments AND one feels that it would be worthwhile to give the person
this feedback on one's feelings.
Xref: sparky soc.women:8798 soc.men:8237 talk.rape:849 talk.abortion:14355 rec.arts.sf.misc:1316