HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Child Support
Keywords: abortion
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 02:13:34 GMT

In article <1drmb0INNh1i@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>
>>Can a man be trusted to make responsible and well-thought-out
>>decisions about his ability (or desire) to raise or support children?
>
>Why should a man be any less able to do so than a woman?

Because right wing moralists think he's immoral and
left wing social reformers think he's irresponsible
(or, at best, negligible).

With that and some sugar, spice, snails, and puppy-dog tails,
you can create a model legal system.

One which provides women the legal power to decide responsibly that
they can't raise kids right now, but strips men of such a legal power.
(Even when healthy, reversible birth control for men is at best 5-15%
prone to failure.)

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
From: auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: The Prejudice Against Men
Date: 6 Nov 92 21:11:44 GMT
Organization: Swarthmore College, PA

In article <1992Nov6.042112.17527@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writ!
>Now, I would guess that the most of these women are
>feminists, and that most feminists are liberal

On an unrelated note, this does not imply that most women are liberal.

Back to our regularly scheduled program.

-dave
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Secretly Wishing... (was:Feminist Jokes)
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 06:51:53 GMT

In article <Bx80L6.AnC@nic.umass.edu> quilty@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Humberto Humbertoldi) writes:
>In article <1992Nov4.191744.18517@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>..........[stuff about romance novels and women readership taken out]..........
>>No, of course not. But it is still a valid question to ask exactly what
>>it does mean. These novels must be fullfilling some need of the women
>>who read them.
>
>Yea, I suppose in some tautologous sense Payne's comment is probably
>true.  There is probably SOME reason why women who buy romance novels
>buy them.  Still, there are a lot of different reasons why people
>expose themselves to various cultural products than to fulfill their
>"true inner nature" -- lots of folks, for example, watch films like
>T2, or anything by Clint Eastwood, where endless numbers of people are
>killed and mutilated.  I myself have enjoyed similar films from time
>to time.  I don't think that one need necessarily say that the whole
>audience must have murderous urges which are expressed by the
>characters in these films.  ** Maybe they just enjoy stories about
>these things! ** It just don't mean that what's portrayed is therefore
>what they really want for themselves.

This is interesting.  When hetero men have rape fantasies, we're told
that they don't really want to rape, just have rape fantasies.  But
when hetero women read trash that contains rapes, we're supposed to
think they really wanted to be treated like this?  After all, it's
"fulfilling some need of the women who read them." 

As far as the Eastwood films...  Nearly every Eastwood film has him in
a protector role, fighting against nasty people.  It's fun to see
nasty people get blown away.
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Dear Starbuck
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 18:03:32 GMT

In article <ZEN.92Nov4165119@death.corp.sun.com> zen@death.corp.sun.com (d) writes:
>
>In article <1992Nov4.193125.20008@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>> In article <ZEN.92Nov3154554@death.corp.sun.com> zen@death.corp.sun.com (d) writes:
>> >In article <1992Nov3.214045.26503@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:
>> >> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>> >> [to rini: ... ]
>> >> Just one minor point: the above phrase is a blatant falsehood.  
>> >> Not that it matters too much.  I just hate see misrepresentations 
>> >> go unnoted.  :)
>> >
>> >  I think he likes you.  Perhaps he's seen those x-rated GIFS of
>> >you...
>
>> No, I haven't. Perhaps you could post then to the net?   :^)
>
>  Aha!  He didn't deny that he likes you, rini!  I *knew* it.  There had
>to be some reason for all the incessent babbling... he was just trying
>to keep you talking by making rediculous claims that he knew you
>couldn't let slide by.  No sentient being could actually *believe* what
>he says.  As for the GIFS... I'll never let them go.  They're the prizes
>of my collection (next to the ones of muffy, that is.)  Letting random
>people have them somehow cheapens their value...


Hahahahaaa, Heheheeehehe  <ROTGL> :^]]]]]

This is great. Never let it be said that 'd' has no sense of humor.

> -- d


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: stewart@geophysics.harvard.edu (Cheryl Stewart)
Subject: Re: Entry level salaries (was: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Reply-To: stewart@geophysics.harvard.edu
Organization: Dept. of Earth & Planetary Sciences, Harvard University
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 23:04:15 GMT

nissim@mary.fordham.edu (Leonard J. Nissim) writes:
| Here are the *new* statistics (from the November 1992 issue of "Notices of 
| the American Mathematical Society"):
| 9-month academic salaries of people with new Ph.D.'s in mathematics:
| (`new' means granted during the 1991/92 academic year) 
| Median salary for men----$34,000  (interquartile range--31,000 to 36,000)
| Median salary for women--$34,900  (interquartile range--33,000 to 37,100)


First of all, you need to present mean rather than median for this to be
a reasonable measure, and second of all, you would have to include in this
mean the numbers ZERO for all of the mathematics Ph.D.s who graduated in the
same year and are now UNEMPLOYED.  My women friends who are on mathematics
faculties report that the unemployment rate is far higher among women Ph.D's
in mathematics than men.  When the average number of people applying for each
of these jobs is over 400 applications, and the number of jobs that are actually
available is well under 200, you have to conclude that the unemployment rate
of mathematics Ph.D.s is well above the national average.  

Cheryl

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu (Devjani Mishra)
Subject: Re: Dear Rich (was: Dear Starbuck)
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: Yale University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 20:08:48 GMT

In article <23659@galaxy.ucr.edu>, starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu (starbuck)
wrote:
> 
 Devjani Mishra, I am not anti-you.  I respect your right to your opinion
and
> thoughts and feel they are as valid as mine. I can also say we share a lot of
> common ground. I am aware that when I post that I may say 
> things that can be taken the wrong way.  This has to do with anger at radical
> feminism as well as my not being willing to make statements to excuse my
> anger.  But to tell you the truth I am getting a little tired of being angry
> at feminists.   Too much anger is not good for the soul, it clouds ones
> vision, twists ones thoughts, and makes meaningful discussion wiht others
> impossible.  In many ways I am guilty of the same things I accuse the radical
> feminists of. 
> 
> starbuck

Thanks.  I didn't mean anti-me as in you don't like me.  I only meant that
if I call myself a feminist and you call yourself an anti-feminist, it
wouldn't be   too far-fetched to think I was one of those whom you opposed.
 		

By the way, I'm glad to see you back on the board.  I thought I had chased
you away.

       /-                   Devjani Mishra, Yale University
      /   /                 misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu
  ___/  _  _   _  ___       diva@minerva.cs.yale.edu    
 /  /   /   | /  /  /
/__/_  /_   |/  /__/_       "What's right is what's left when everything
                            else is wrong." - Robin Williams
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Child Support
Keywords: abortion
Date: 12 Nov 92 20:10:07 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

>With that and some sugar, spice, snails, and puppy-dog tails,
>you can create a model legal system.

You left out the slugs and the lawyers.		:-)

>Even when healthy, reversible birth control for men is at best 5-15%
>prone to failure.

I've never heard of cunnilingus resulting in a pregnancy.
Maybe you ought to try it sometime.

							--  Michal
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
From: auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer)
Subject: Re: Incorrect Orgasms? (was: Please explain this quote)
Organization: Swarthmore College, PA
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 11:06:05 GMT

In article <Bx9J2M.GEt@news.cso.uiuc.edu> parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu () writes:
>[...]
>It seems rather arrogant to presume that a man knows more--or even as *much*--
>about what women enjoy than a woman does.
>[...]
>-Rob

It seems arrogant to me to presume that a man would be unable to know more
about what women enjoy than a woman does.  This was not your stated point,
but it seemed like somewhat of a logical extension.  Sorry, if I am putting
words into your mouth.

-dave
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women,soc.men,soc.singles
From: jsue@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey L. Sue)
Subject: Re: *Mother* MacDunaugh?! *FAINT*
Originator: jsue@troon.ncsa.uiuc.edu
Organization: The Dow Chemical Company
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1992 02:16:23 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.055712.26556@netcom.com> tyger@netcom.com (Kristen Kohlbecker) writes:
>Apparently His Holiness, the Pope, who has heretofore been against women
>priests because of the Biblical precedent of Jesus selecting all male
>apostles to spread His word, 

I could be totally off- base here, but I've always felt that this argument
against women in the priesthood was an incorrect conclusion drawn from a 
correlation.  I didn't study the greek and roman culture in-depth, but I
what I did learn from the courses and readings was that the female gender
at that time was viewed somewhat less valuable (by males) than livestock.
To the point where they murdered infants regularly if a baby was a girl.
If this is a true picture of society at that time, I find it difficult
that Jesus *could* have recruited women to preach.  Would men have taken
them seriously? (some say men still don't take women seriously, and we're
much better now than we were then.)

From what I've learned, I just don't think that recruiting women, at that
time, was even an option.  In any case, how does this correlate to why
the church, today, would still hold to this idea.  The only reason that
I could see for the RC church for resisting change, is if it would
have a negative impact on the "spirit" of what the church is teaching.
I sincerely doubt that allowing women to become priests will harm the
spirituality of the church celebrations.

As for allowing priests (either sex) to marry... with the size of the priestly
ranks shrinking I don't see how it can be avoided.  I wouldn't want the job,
the hours can be worse than doctor's hours (e.g., many, many off-hours 
interruptions).  It could be a pretty stressful on family life... but
then many other occupations are too.




-- 
-----
Jeff Sue   
 - All opinions are mine -       (and you can't have any, nya nya nya)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
From: slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: *Mother* MacDunaugh?! *FAINT*
Date: 13 Nov 92 15:31:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Nov13.153106.14245
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame

In article <1992Nov13.091322.4300@fys.ruu.nl> johnston@fys.ruu.nl (Helen Johnston) writes:
>In article <1992Nov12.164932.25011@cbfsb.cb.att.com> kevinc@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (kevin.j.coulter) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov12.055712.26556@netcom.com> tyger@netcom.com (Kristen Kohlbecker) writes:
>>>Apparently His Holiness, the Pope, who has heretofore been against women
>>>priests because of the Biblical precedent of Jesus selecting all male
>>>apostles to spread His word, has indicated that he would be receptive to 
>>>a well-reasoned plan to begin introducing women to the priesthood, and letting
>>>current clergy marry or not as is their choice. American bishops and their
>>>European counterparts are meeting to come up with a proposal...
>>
>Has anyone else heard this? The only reported reaction from the
>Catholic Church that I have heard so far is a statement from Rome that
>the synod's decision is a "serious barrier" to talks of reconcilliation
>between the Catholic and Anglican churches.

Yes.  In yesterday's Notre Dame student newspaper, there were articles 
on both the action of the Anglican church with the statement from Rome 
and the willingness of some RC bishops to discuss women in the priesthood.
It really was funny to see these items appear on the same day.  There was a 
third article reporting that the American bishops cannot agree on a position 
paper about women in the church, also.  Obviously a hot topic in Catholic 
circles.

Sue Larsen
slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:4082 rec.humor.d:2614
From: auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,rec.humor.d
Subject: Re: Secretly Wishing... (was:Feminist Jokes)
Date: 10 Nov 92 07:06:04 GMT
Organization: Swarthmore College, PA

In article <1992Nov9.220717.13091@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>In article <1992Nov8.012147.26418@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>:[...]

>	Examples of self-proclaimed feminists who enjoy bodice-ripper
>romance novels, please?

Me.  Not without a certain degree of revulsion and self-enforced detachment.
I enjoyed reading _On_Fascism_ by Mussolini too.

-dave
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: liberal men are a hot item
Date: 6 Nov 92 22:06:46 GMT
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations


Okay, well, several folks asked me to put my money where my mouth 
is and put forward the references I offered.  (I claimed that
less traditional married men were more desired in the marriage market
than the traditional ones.)  Well, I have looked and I cannot find.
Sorry.

Let me just offer a few statistics, though, to make this argument
seem tenable to y'all.

In a nutshell, men are more likely to view traditional sex roles
as desirable.  Women, OTOH, are more likely to favor less
traditional arrangments. 

Now, given the not unreasonable assumption that people like to 
marry people with a similar ideological bent (especially in
regards to gender roles in the family), it makes sense that
there will be a high demand for non-traditional men and, conversely,
a high demand for traditional women.  Does that make sense?

In other words, once all the conservative women and all the liberal
liberal men find like-minded mates, there will be a surplus of liberal 
women looking for liberal men (and similarly a surplus of conservative
men looking for conservative women).

Here are some comparisons to show that men are more likely than
women to favor traditional sex roles:

-rini

===========


It is better for everyone if the man achieves outside home, 
and the woman acheives inside the home.

                      % men       % women
------------------------------------------------
Agree                  46.5         32.9
Disagree               53.5         66.1


Most women are happiest at home with kids.

                      % men       % women
------------------------------------------------
Agree                  45.7         33.5
Disagree               54.3         65.5


Wives should help their husband's career before having one of
their own.

                      % men       % women
-----------------------------------------------
Agree                  40.2         33.7
Disagree               59.8         65.3


Men should have priorty in hiring because they have family
responsibilities.

                      % men       % women
-----------------------------------------------
Agree                  40.5         23.6
Disagree               59.5         76.3


A working mother can be as good a mother as a non-working mother.

                      % men       % women
-----------------------------------------------
Agree                  55.3         68.1
Disagree               44.7         31.9
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Why I Am a Feminist
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 16:41:07 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.044943.8122@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>>>To my knowledge, no one has gotten away with saying/implying something 
>>>like "all men are rapists" on the net.
> 
>>So you are saying that while using man when speaking of all mankind
>>devalues women, talking about rape as if it were usual, normal, and
>>almost the expected behavior does not in any way devalue men?
>
>Nope. I have never claimed either.

I did not ask if you -had- claimed, but if you find it reasonable now.

And ljf has just claimed the feeling that 'most men hate women', as I
recall. This is much stronger that the claim ( which met with much
resistance ) that 'some feminists are man-haters'.

The outcome of this claim should be instructive. It is a generalization
similiar to 'all men are rapists'.
 
>rini

Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: _The Te of Piglet_ or Benjamin Hoff
Date: 5 Nov 92 10:17:19 GMT
Organization: Swarthmore College, PA

In article <CINDY.92Nov3174648@meshugge.media.mit.edu> cindy@meshugge.media.mit.edu (Cindy Blank-Edelman) writes:
>Malcolm Pon writes:
>
>> Anyway, as the keywords point out, I found some clear backlash and
>> unclear thinking in the Eeyore chapter of the Te of Piglet, which has
>> kind of turned me off of reading the rest of the book.  Anneliese has
>> said that considering, she wouldn't mind returning the book.
>
>My husband and I were both looking forward to reading the Te of
>Piglet, having very much enjoyed the Tao of Pooh (as you did).  We
>bought a copy, which I was enjoying until I got to the Eeyore Amazons
>section that you mention.  At that point, I became so frustrated and
>upset that I could not continue reading the book.  My husband reacted
>similarly.  
>
>It is so disillusioning when someone whom you respect comes up with
>the same tired anti-feminist rhetoric.  I cannot conceive of how Mr.
>Hoff (the author) could possibly fit in these anti-feminist comments
>with the Taoist philosophy he is explaining.  He seems to me to be
>very very confused.
>
>That being said, I also will say that many of the people who post to
>alt.feminism will agree heartily with what Hoff writes.  But those
>people are probably the ones who would not identify as feminists.
>
>--Cindy Blank-Edelman

I felt similarly.  I loved the _Tao_of_Pooh_, but I found Hoff's political
statements a bit banal as did I find some of his cutesy pun-conversations
with the animals.  Otherwise I really like the _TEP_, but I felt it paled next
to the _TOP_.

-dave
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Subject: Re: children and divorce
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 01:54:48 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.043132.2250@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>It has been established for a long time that having children
>reduces the likelihood of divorce (staying together for the
>children's sake, have an important joint investment, etc.)
>
>There is an interesting footnote here however.  Apparently, boy 
>children "hold marriages together" better than girl children.
>
>If the first child is a girl, the probability of divorce is .43.
>If the first child is a boy, the probability of divorce is .39.
>
>If the marriage stays together long enough to have two kiddies:
>
>If they are both girls, the probability of divorce is .31.
>If they are both boys, the probability of divorce is .27.
>
>It has been argued that this differential may be explained by the
>fact that fathers take a larger role in raising boys and thus
>releive the mother of over-reponsibility and frustration.  
>
>(see Morgan, Lye and Condran, American Journal of Sociology 94: 
>110-129.)

That is scary.

One not immediately apparent possibility is that male children are more likely
to be subjected to an environment with hostility.

Of course, one could argue that the marriage is actually improved enough by
the male child that this is not the case.

-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mwasson@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Michael Wasson)
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Organization: University of Hawaii
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 23:00:08 GMT

>Hmm, is that old saying that one looks fatter on TV (or in pix) true?
>
>I mean, has anybody ever actually run tests of people's perceptions with
>weight-guessing of pix and real people by a couple controlled groups?
>
>And how would you account for the possibility that people may *expect* to see
>people thinner because that's what you always see?  [Thus, they may
>automatically add/subtract to account for the difference they [sub]conciously
>expect.]

Yeah. In Sam Delaney's S/F novel _Triton_ a character concludes from
watching old movies & such that *all* men in the 20th century were
taller than *all* women because you never saw taller guy/shorter woman
couples.

>"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu

Mike
______________________________________________________________________
Mike Wasson    ---   U.Hawai'i, Manoa   ---   Fat Messiah Games
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"I am surrounded by creepy murderous pedants!" (Donald Barthelme)
"Live for today . . . Scheme for tomorrow." (a friend)
----------------------------------------------------------------------


Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
From: parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: Incorrect Orgasms? (was: Please explain this quote)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 21:44:39 GMT

sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
[much omitted...]

>Notice that the acceptance of "vaginal intercourse as undesirable"
>implies that a man should attempt to pleasure a woman in the same
>way that a lesbian does. Notice that it also implies that, in
>lovemaking, the penis has very little value, and is in fact something 
>of a nusiance.

[more omitted...]
It seems rather arrogant to presume that a man knows more--or even as *much*--
about what women enjoy than a woman does.  If that is the "way that a lesbian
does" you might get the subtle hint that women might enjoy "that way". But women
are individuals and taste varies greatly.  I am not saying that all women would
enjoy lesbian sex, or that those who enjoy "that way" don't enjoy other ways
as well.  I *am* saying that I'm sure the IORAN approach gets boring eventually
if that is all you do--at least for many people.  Spice it up!  ;-)

It would also be arrogant to consider a woman's pleasure unimportant.  Both
parties should enjoy love-making.  (IMO)

>        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com

-Rob
Newsgroups: alt.feminism