HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall)
Subject: Re: gender "data-hiding" (vs. discrimination)
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 17:06:02 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.194723.2451@alliant.com> russ@alliant.com (Russell McFatter) writes:
>In article <92099.162254JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu> JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu (Joy Haftel) writes:
>>
>>Toss this one over in your mind:  for women to have an equal weight,
>>status, and opportunity in the world as men, they cannot have children.

  [ deletions ]

>>This is a *big* problem, and also shows when women are being hired; if
>>they think you are just going to get married, have a baby, and suck
>>the company for maternity leave, you have less of a chance of being
>>hired.
 
 [ deletions ]

>This may be cold reality, but it's a cold reality that employers
>have to deal with.  Suppose you have a choice of two, equally-competent
>referrals from an employment agency in front of you.  One is a young
>woman who's been married about a year, and is likely to be getting pregnant
>very soon.  Chances are fairly good, if her husband has a full-time
>job and good salary, that she may never return after her maternity leave,
>and will either stay home or seek part-time employment.  The other
>choice is a man of the same age, or an older woman whose children are
>in college.

 I don't have any answers for this, but it did bring to mind a news
 item I heard about a year ago (and I'd love to hear any follow-up if
 someone know's more information!):

	A woman applying for a job was required to take a drug
	(urine) test.  She had strong feelings about the right
	to privacy, but wanted the job so she took the test 
	and passed it.

	She was hired.  While in the personnel office, she decided 
	she had the right to know the results of her drug test.  When 
	she asked for the results, the reply she got was, 
		"Oh, don't worry, you're not pregnant."

	She filed a lawsuit.  I have not heard anything more.

 This also brings to mind that the issue is not simply women being
 descriminated against for pregnancy.  With health care such a major
 cost, employers are now trying to screen for cardiovascular disease, 
 cancer, HIV, and diabetes (which can be detected with urine tests, 
 I think).  
   
 Janice 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.
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct
From: pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich)
Subject: Re: Men Are Not Cost Effective
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 01:15:39 GMT
Organization: (Ha!)

In article <1992Apr13.170131.11954@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu> bev@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu (Beverly Huntsberger) writes:
>In <1992Apr7.232943.29322@panix.com> pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich) writes:
>>Idunno. What struck me immediately is the interesting set of parallels
>>between taxing men because they form the preponderance of the criminal
>>class and discriminating against women in employment because they form 
>>the preponderance of the take-time-away-from-career class. 
>
>>On the one hand, the proportions are different; one the other hand,
>>so is the social utility. Comments?
[some very good stuff about how _anyone_ should negotiate the particular
kind of job they want with their employer, be it fast track, medium, or
slow]
...
>	In conclusion, consider that IF women indeed constitute
>	"the preponderance of the take-time-away-from-career
>	class", perhaps it's not necessarily a criminal attitude.
>	Maybe, you'll slowly begin to notice a few brave men
>	following suit. Perhaps, someday, the idea  will be
>	generally accepted.
...
>		Curious how these "women's things" tend to
>	get associated with crime when they first start to become
>	empowering (for anyone). It has to with WHO is defining
>	"crime" in society. As in: which class?

Gee, and the only point I wanted to make was that you had to be a raving
idiot to miss the inconsistency in opposing the idea that men should be
discriminated against (charged extra taxes or whatever) to pay for the
social cost of (predominantly male) criminality while supporting the
idea that women should be discriminated against (not hired or paid less)
because of the supposed cost of (the predominantly female practice of) 
taking time off for kids.

One of the problems here, imho, is that although corporations are legal
persons, they do not eat, they do not sleep, if you cut them they do
not bleed. Beats out flesh-and-blood types every time :-(

paul


Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct
From: alex@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain)
Subject: Re: Men Are Not Cost Effective
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus, Academic Computing Services
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 20:05:03 GMT

In article <4593@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil> rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero) writes:

>I generally try to be a sensitive 90's kind of guy, but my gut reaction to
>the authors hypothesis and proposal is that she doesn't have a clue.  Her
>solution is classically liberal -- don't insist on personal responsibility
>for criminals, and try to punish some group you perceive has an advantage.
>Wonder if she considers herself a feminist?

	I thought that the artical was classically conservative - try and
show how a certain section of society is defined by the criminal class,
and attempt to punish that section based on that relationship. I wonder if
she considers herself pro-family?

-- 
#################################		           :alex.
#Disclaimer: Anyone who agrees  #                 Systems Programmer
#with me deserves what they get.#    University of Maryland Baltimore County
#################################	    alex@umbc3.umbc.edu
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
From: bev@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu (Beverly Huntsberger)
Subject: Re: pro-choice == pro-(womens' only) choice?
Organization: Univ. of South Carolina, Columbia
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 17:04:56 GMT

In <1992Apr7.100327.1@mdcbbs.com> rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:


>men. On one hand, women want total control over the decision making process
>because it is their body, but want men to be financially obligated to 
>support whatever decision they, the females, make. Men shouldn't mind
>such enforcements, as walets are not as important as bodies, but wallets are
>impritant ENOUGH for manadatory support laws to be needed. 

	I DON'T WANT YOUR WALLET. I have a nice Liz
	Claiborne that I am quite happy with. I also
	have real estate, stocks, and other investments.
	I don't _have_ any children. I don't think we
	"own" them, anyway, but I'm not a parent either.

	And yet, I pay a percentage of my revenues to
	support children who I don't know and will 
	never meet and I don't have a clue about
	whether their mothers have a decent income or
	not or whether their fathers are in hiding.
	I  care about society, the future,  etc. so
	I pay. I also pay because we all  do.

	The fact is that "WE ALL" (oh my god, a generalization)
	uh, sorry, about that ;) ... 
	Most of here bear a distributed responsibility,
	financially, for 100's of millions of other
	people all over the world. We do  this when
	we pay taxes.

	Personally, I pay as little taxes as I can get
	away with, but then I give a lot to specific 
	charities of my own choosing. Nevertheless,
	I don't get a gender-based tax credit. ;)
	-------------------------------------

	NONE of this should be used to water-down women's	
	legal rights. If you got the laws you want about
	men's equity in family court, AND you've tied
	these rights to abortion rights; THEN would you
	agree to give up your new, hard-won legal rights
	when abortion rights laws take a dive?
	( I know we are in for a long, hot summer)
	Would that kind of connection make sense to you?

	Well, women didn't establish our rights in deals
	of this bundle and that package and I suggest 
	that you fight for what you believe in and get
	out of that dead end of "the used car sales" let's	
	make a deal pitch.
	
	ps: Are you more angry at your ex-wife or your child ?

bah
-- 
-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Just read his lips:
Now, he wants us to believe in the "tooth fairy".
-	-	-	-	-	-	-
From: cnh5730@maraba.tamu.edu (Charles Herrick)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Japanese Women's Lib
Date: 13 Apr 92 19:17:58 GMT

In article <r#qj-dl.sheaffer@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert  
Sheaffer) writes:
$    I spent two weeks working in Japan last
$    summer. It brought back memories of my childhood in the 1950s:
$    traditional gender roles are practically *never* crossed. Most
$    women are not particularly serious about any career, and as soon
$    as a woman marries and becomes a mother, she leaves the  
workforce
$    until her children are grown.

then writes:
$    The amazing thing (to me, at least) is how incredibly *happy* so 
$    many women seem there, especially the younger ones. 

I don't find this amazing at all.


You'd think the RadFems would get this, wouldn't you ... except that  
the happiness of American females is not one of their priorities.  
Acquiring positions of power based on the illusion of discrimination  
without having to earn them is.

Newsgroups: soc.men
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Maternity Leave and Child Benefits
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 15:02:57 GMT

In article <1992Apr11.161400.5017@news.lrz-muenchen.de> TRINGHAM@usmv01.usm.uni-muenchen.de (Tringham, Neal) writes:

Re: population growth
)
)> It seems to be happening in third world countries.  
)
)By and large, third world countries don't have the sort of social support
)system I assumed we were talking about.

Yep.  But it is not clear to me that if you did give them that sort of social
support (and nothing else) that the population would automatically drop.
It might well rise.  You talk about history - but is there any precedent for
taking an existing growing poor population, giving them aid & improving their
standard of living (by external fiat)  and having their population drop?

[There may not be any precedent for having the population rise, either -
there's probably just no precedent either way.]

...

)Also, while one can see that comparatively rich, well-educated people
)in countries with good health care would not necessarily want lots of
)children, there seems no obvious reason why a low birth rate in a 
)society with poor health care and a low level of prosperity should cause
)an increase in wealth, given the absence of a state-funded social support
)system for all the children born. Indeed, one might well expect the
)opposite effect. 

I'd expect that given more land per person, 3d world countries would see
an increase in wealth per person - as long as there was enough population to
exploit the land fully, that is (which would be true for even significant
reductions in population, IMO).
From: cnh5730@maraba.tamu.edu (Charles Herrick)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: SNUFF FILMS sighted in TIME MAGAZINE!!! (Dworkin and MacKinnon, too)
Keywords: mature, reasoned, insightful
Date: 13 Apr 92 19:34:15 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.165017.1@vm2.cis.pitt.edu> tjw@vm2.cis.pitt.edu  
writes:
$ Here's a little excerpt from the Law section of TIME entitled
$ "PASSIONS OVER PORNORAPHY" by John Elson.
$ From the March 30th, 1992 edition of TIME (Page 52).
$ The article features 2 nice pictures of the mascotts of soc.men:
$ 	Professor Catharine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin

$ "Pornography currently has more protection than women do",  
MacKinnon told the
$ statehouse committee considering the Massachusetts bill.  In  
corroboration,
$ several witnesses gave chilling testimony of being sexually abused  
by
$ husbands and boyfriends who admitted that they had been prompted by  
porn
$ films or magazines.  


Note that pornography is being equated with violence and snuff films  
by the feminazis again.

What about all the pornography where the women are obviously enjoying  
themselves?

Or do the feminist really want to imply that all females, like them,  
are sexually disfunctional and unable to enjoy healthy sex?

Newsgroups: soc.men
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Feminists Growing Old Alone (was: Japanese Women's Lib)
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 16:42:51 GMT

In article <cbyj2rk.sheaffer@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
)
)Assuming he actually *did* this, I would agree it to be a boorish
)act. But now feminists seriously propose to CRIMINALIZE boorishness??!!

It's not a proposal - it's *already* a reality, though it is a civil matter
rather than a criminal one.  Also elements other than feminism are somewhat
involved (though it seems obvious to me that feminism is the major part of
the driving force behind these laws).
From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: The Gender Lie
Date: 8 Apr 92 15:42:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: netlink.8g6wiB1w164w
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

Max Zener writes:
 
> But we before us here a provable theory -- homosexuality has a 
> genetic basis.
 
I agree.  It is probably a genetic potential that exists within 
all males to a greater or lesser extent.  Maybe it is nothing
more than a vestigial feminine component like male breasts, but
I doubt it.
 
For homosexual behavior to express at the levels it does in the 
population, it is most likely to be a developmental pathway/response 
activated by the limbic system in response to certain sociosexual 
cues.  The portion that is congenital is probably the result of 
mother's own sociosexual environment.
 
The idea that its expression is blindly congenital or blindly genetic 
is politically convenient for gay politicos but it is not consistent 
with what we know about genetic self-interest -- not even taking 
take kin selection into account.  
 
We should look carefully at the environments that elicit homosexuality 
such as prisons, the military and the upbringing of idential twins who 
end up with different orientations.  We should also look at the mothers 
of homosexuals, their sociosexual upbringing and neonatal environment.
 
Also, there haven't been any studies that analyzed variance based 
on the homosexual type.  The variety of homosexual expressions and 
how they are elicited may tell us a great deal about the evolutionary 
purpose of homosexuality.  
 
For all of the studies set up to prove that homosexuality is has a
genetic component, there is an incredible dearth of such INFORMATIVE 
studies.  This is probably a consequence of the politicized nature
of the debate, but it does more to confuse than to resolve the real 
issues.
 
Finding the evolutionary origin of homosexuality is the real puzzle here.
If that can be identified, society can adapt appropriately.
 
>By the way, hormones _do_ affect developmental paths, but only before 
birth.
 
This is false.  
 
Hormones exert both short term and long term developmental pressures 
throughout life, but particularly during childhood and adolescence.  
In the case of sexuality, the most likely place homosexual divergence 
takes place is at adolescence since that is when secondary sexual 
characteristics diverge based on hormonal influences.

--                    
INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!nosc!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 435-6181
Xref: sparky soc.men:8336 alt.dads-rights:672
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: pro-choice == pro-(womens' only) choice?
Date: 11 Apr 92 01:56:23 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Distribution: na
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

In article <8172@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul) writes:

>Merlyn LeRoy compares apples with oranges

Merlyn usually behaves like a lawyer.

+ Hillel, am I ever going to get an answer from you about the
+ traffic accident analogy?  You know, where the driver of the
+ car hits a pedestrian and later wants to limit his liability
+ so charges of manslaughter don't "destroy his life" (because
+ the pedestrian's family wants to make a medical decision he
+ disagrees with; discontinue life support).  The driver wanted
+ to either require life support or cut off his liability, but

Merlyn, the problem is that I'm looking for solutions that will
work in most cases.  By "work" I mean "give people a fair chance
and be cost effective."

Your idea of "no choice for men" was tried for a long a time
and it has the following bugs:

1) It destroys men's lives ("one break in condom and she
   can destroy your life"), 

2) It increases the hostility and the mistrust between
   the sexes (*I* see it as bug), 

3) It needs a lot of state and federal power just to keep it going.
   (You heard the the liberals want to send the FBI after non-paying
   dads, no matter why they don't pay, didn't you?)

One day you might understand that fitting the laws to people is
more just and cost effective than fitting people to laws; till
then, I don't think that we have any base for conversation.

Hillel                                              gazit@cs.duke.edu

"Legal" doesn't necessarily mean "good" -- or "right" -- or "reasonable".
Do you really just base your actions on what is and isn't _legal_?  Do you
really just hand over all your decision-making power to the government?
                                       -- Diane Holt
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Condom use among Prostitutes
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com
Date: 14 Apr 92 10:33:46 GMT
Organization: M&E (Division of EDS), Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: mdhc

In article <7560096@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM>, post@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (David Post) writes:
> In your experience, do prostitutes *always* use condoms?
> 
> I am wondering whether prostitution is "safer" sex than among the rest of the
> population.
> 
> David Post  davep@hpfcpp.fc.hp.com  hplabs!hpfcla!post
-- 

  The California Department of Health wanted to find out and surveyed 300
callgirls. Mind you, these sre regular business women with pagers, answering
services, and magazine ads, not the same ones you see hanging on the street
corner.

  The results of the survey was that a call girl was far less likely to
be carrying a STD than the "amatuer" talent. In addition, not a single one of
the callgirls tested positive for AIDS.

  The conclusion was that the callgirls recognize they are at risk and take
appropriate precautions. The control group were still operating for the most
part) on the "it won't happen to me" theory of sex.


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com Homo Cyberneticus-Computational Man  |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|   I don't have anything against you...........but I wish I did!  :)    |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor)
Subject: Re: Companies can afford it, right?
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 15:35:13 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.133217.25957@news.nd.edu> slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:

>
>If you feel comfortable in advocating a position that would make 
>employment more difficult for a woman to hold, then I suppose there 
>is nothing I can say to change your mind.
>
>
>Sue Larsen
>slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu

What makes you think that just because you have a NEED for a comfortable 
job, than somebody else SHOULD provide it for you, at his expense ?

Dov
    

Newsgroups: soc.men
From: mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mikeey J. Lin)
Subject: Re: Request : Dating advice from women
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 04:31:34 GMT

In <8090@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul) writes:

>Mikeey J. Lin writes

>+ 						 Mikeey
>+ 				    mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
>+ 
>+ PS Any "macho" guys out there who disagrees with my views are welcome to
>+    "enlighten" me.       
>+  
>+ >Q

>I dunno if I'm macho, but the signature "Q" should have tipped you off that
>you shouldn't take it too seriously...

>Feel enlightened.
	
	Thanks for the info. I'll be on the look out for "Q" next time.

						Mikeey

>K'Char - if that doesn't work, I could warm up the ol' 4x2...
From: stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Request : Dating advice from women
Date: 7 Apr 92 22:39:40 GMT
Distribution: na

Mikeey J. Lin writes

+ 						 Mikeey
+ 				    mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
+ 
+ PS Any "macho" guys out there who disagrees with my views are welcome to
+    "enlighten" me.       
+  
+ >Q

I dunno if I'm macho, but the signature "Q" should have tipped you off that
you shouldn't take it too seriously...

Feel enlightened.

K'Char - if that doesn't work, I could warm up the ol' 4x2...
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.dads-rights
From: dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.flame,alt.fan.q
Subject: Re: Q the fake
Date: 14 Apr 92 14:25:00 GMT
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <HROSE.92Apr13204820@rocza.eff.org>, hrose@eff.org (Helen Trillian Rose) writes:
> 
:  Mikeey> == Mikeey J. Lin <mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu> 
: 
:  Mikeey> 	I would like to see this "Q" character in person.
:  Mikeey> Hmmm... I wonder what size shovel he's using?
: 
: I'm curious to know why so many people believe "Q" is a male. Is it
: because Q has a similar posting style to many of the male.bozos on
: soc.women, or just because of gender bias?
:

As opposed to the female.bozos in soc.men?
 
> Think over carefully before answering....
> 

yeah, right...

> --Helen
> --
> Helen Trillian Rose             	email eff@eff.org for EFF info
> Electronic Frontier Foundation   	irc operators: operlist@eff.org
> Systems and Networks Administration	Flames to: 
> <hrose@eff.org, hrose@cs.bu.edu>	women-not-to-be-messed-with@eff.org

-- 

Dan S.
Xref: sparky soc.men:8542 soc.women:9065 talk.abortion:15600
From: baba@Tymnet.COM (Duane Hentrich)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: You want to win(Men's rights and Women's rights).
Date: 16 Apr 92 18:45:24 GMT
Reply-To: baba@Tymnet.COM (Duane Hentrich)
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: BT Tymnet Inc., San Jose CA

In article <1992Apr16.161441.28735@news.nd.edu>, slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:
|> I do not feel 100% comfortable with advocating enforced 
|> male sterilization.

Bwahahah! This is either the funniest or saddest statement I've seen on usenet
in ages. Talk about your (hopefully) basic uunderstatement.

In case it's not clear: 
	KEEP YOUR GOD DAMNED GOVERNMENTAL HANDS OUT OF MY SCROTUM.

-- 
d'baba Duane M. Hentrich	...!hplabs!oliveb!tymix!baba
                                         baba@Tymnet.Com
Warning: Expicit Thoughts