HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,soc.men
Subject: Re: Guilty of ... STUPIDITY!
Date: 27 Sep 92 17:26:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.Bv8z4z.86I

In article <1992Sep27.142543.22029@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>In article <1992Sep26.010732.2804@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:

[discussion re violent thoughts vs. violent actions, and spousal notification]

>And, since this sort of situation can be *very* stressful, and since some women
>are going to wind up being killed if they have to tell their spouses of an
>abortion, you want to require women to tell their spouses.
>
>Wonderful logic.

I heard no such logic except from you.

The reason for notification is not to require women to be killed.

You seem to conveniently and persistently ignore the proposal that 
a woman need not inform her husband if it poses a danger to her.


>Gee, and why would the women "refuse to speak honestly and openly"?  Maybe
>becuase they've already heard about how if they "show disrespect", they'll
>be killed?

Again, the only proposal to kill a woman simply because she 
"shows disrespect" has come from you.  Is that why you are so 
afraid of informing men about things that might upset them?

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism
From: slarsen@monet.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen)
Subject: Re: The Politics Of Appeasement
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 21:43:35 GMT

In article <Bvo0wK.Bn9@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.182457.22437@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct1.161757.5779@news.nd.edu> slarsen@titian.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:
>>
>>)I've always heard AA described as assisting "women and minorities".  That 
>>)phrase does not imply that women are a minority, just that they are 
>>)considered, along with ethnic minorities, in need of affirmative action. 
>>
>>I've *never* heard men referred to as a 'minority' though.  Even though they
>>do compose less than half of the population.  It's rare to hear women 
>>referred to as 'a majority' too, though that is also technically correct.
>>It's part of the same thing, I think.
>
>Splitting hairs, "women and minorities" therefore refers to all people.
>
>Is a European background not an "ethnic" background?  Are men not
>a minority?  Why don't white men get affirmative action?

Maybe it is because white men, as a group, do not have a strong 
desire to move into fields which have been traditionally dominated 
by women and/or minorities?

I don't think AA was instituted to help "minorities" or minority 
populations because of their numbers.  I think AA was instituted to 
break a perceived "lock" on the good educational slots and the good 
jobs that white men (a minority by number) held.  To my understanding, 
the logic runs something like:  if 15% of the population is African-
American and 51% of the population is female, then why is the enroll-
ment at College X 75% white men, or the managerial hirees of Insurance 
Company Y over the last ten years 90% white men?  In other words, AA 
recognizes that women and minorities by number are a majority of our 
population, yet a minority of players on the employment "fast track."
It is an attempt at a numbers solution to more deeply ingrained social 
problems.

I wonder, would Affirmative Action be available to men pursuing a 
secretarial job (95% plus female)?  Does anyone know?

Sue Larsen
slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic)
Subject: Re: LOVE!!!!!LOVE!!!!!!!LOVE!!!!!!!!MORE LOVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Organization: TRW Financial Systems
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 11:12:36 GMT

Junish.Arora@dartmouth.edu (Junish Arora) writes:
>sdp@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (sunil.d.patil) writes:
>
>> To all those beautiful, loving and compassionate girls,
>
>i think you should be careful when you appropriate the concept of
>beauty, especially in poetry, for in poetry words carry a tremendous
>weight.  i assume you mean transcendental and not physical beauty, but
>this is not an assumption one should have to make while reading poetry.
> this is even more important considering our cultural context and the
>emphasis our society places upon women to be physically attractive and
>in particular fair.  specificity would be appropriate when dealing with
>a topic like beauty.
>
>jaa

I have gone through hell-on-earth to disabuse myself of these notions.
There is nothing wrong with discussing attractiveness in public.
Everyone judges using many criteria. The pained express the notion,
as I see it, that *they* will not be selected.

I want to meet beautiful women. What does this mean? How do you possibly
know in advance? What makes a woman beautiful? You don't ask this.

If someone does not think that you are attractive, they are a bad bet for
a relationship. As to suppressing speech regarding what everyone is aware
of, this I call the 'conspiracy of silence'. I do not agree with its
premises, and I think it keeps society mired in a lack of awareness
which keeps things in the bad way they are. The truth cannot be so much
worse than lies fostered through omission, and compulsive omission at that.

-ecsd

This is not a .sig; but as usual, if I am replying out of line of the actual
discussion going on here, - O flame me, O flame me.
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: ra@asuvax.eas.asu.edu (Starcap'n Ra)
Subject: Re: Mattel and math avoidance in girls
Organization: soc.women
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 18:27:09 GMT

clong@remus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long) writes:
> I partially agree with you.  Barbie is saying only "Math class
> is hard", which is a rather meaningless statement when taken out
> of context.  Is Barbie talking about calculus?  If she's studying
> to be a doctor like she claims, it's almost certainly an honors
> class.  If Barbie was saying "I can't do math" I would agree
> completely, but she isn't saying that.

     You've got to be kidding.  With all the years
of young girls having drilled into them that they
can't do math, Mattel puts a blonde bimbo doll on
the market saying "Math class is hard" and you
rationalize it all away as harmless?

> I don't think Mattel is guilty of sexism, only poor
> judgement;

     I don't really care what you prefer to call
it or what Mattel's motivation was.  Regardless,
they fucked up and should stop selling the dolls
with that particular soundtrack immediately.

--Starcap'n Ra       {ames,gatech,husc6,rutgers}!ncar!noao!asuvax!kennedy
                        {allegra,decvax,ihnp4,oddjob}--^
                                          ^---------------The Wrong Choice
                             internet: kennedy@asuvax.asu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: acp@cray.com (Anthony Peterson)
Subject: Re: What adjectives do you think best describe romantic jealousy?
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 6 Oct 92 14:11:04 CDT

In article <2612@tymix.Tymnet.COM> baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich) writes:
>Can't we make a newsgroup like alt.help.me.with.my.schoolwork for this type
>of crap. 13 news groups. Duh!
>
>Or maybe alt.usenet.poll
>
	Shouldn't that be alt.usenet.pole?


Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,soc.men
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (Rini Clarkberg)
Subject: Re: Guilty of ... Thoughtcrime!
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 23:19:30 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
>>Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>>>
>>> Actually, I've seen many statistics showing that pregnancy is no greater a
>>> risk for women than the operation to terminate one.
>
>>Where have you seen these statistics?  Everything I've seen says that
>>the risk for carrying to term is much higher.

<a ton of statistics deleted>

>As usual, you give only mortality figures.  

What's the problem with that?

>And except for the Alan
>Guttmacher Institute, an affiliate of Planned Parenthood whose stats
>on other things are higly dubious (as I've pointed out to Cochran on the
>talk.apology thread), it is impossible to tell how far removed these
>other sources are from the PRIMARY sources by the little info you give.

According to Our Bodies, Ourselves an aspiration abortion (the most
common kind) is *THE* safest operation of all -- safer than circumcision
for chissake.

I found Larry's post exceptional in it's detail.  Care to post findings
which contradict his?  (Instead of merely poo-pooing his sources?)
I would sincerely like to see some statistics which contradict his from
a scientific or medical source.

>That's officially reported figures.  In 1978, the Chicago Sun-Times
>did an expose in which it uncovered 12 previously unreported deaths
>due to abortion.

Fine.  Anything more recent?  How about more scientific?  Nationally
representative?  (1978?  Boy -- I hope you aren't telling us this
from memory...)

>>--     the risk of complications with abortion is minimal --
>>     less than 1% of all abortion patients experience a major
>>     comlication associated with the procedure, such as a
>>     serious pelvic infection, hemorrhage requiring a blood
>>     transfusion or unintended major surgery.
>
>And how do they know, when so many women are understandably 
>reluctant to return to a place that butchered them in the first
>place?

How do YOU know that women are supposedly reluctant to return to
their doctor after an abortion?  Presumably, they go to SOME doctor
(can't get a transfusion at Safeway...).  I would imagine that's how 
they get the statistics...

rini
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: flagg@blind-lemon.cs.unlv.edu (Scott Cunningham)
Subject: Re: Perot and women
Organization: UNLV
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 92 20:15:30 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.100635.10325@leland.Stanford.EDU>  
farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
 "Did anyone else find Perot's comments about the two female NBC
 "reporters being too harsh on him, and that "they're trying to prove
 "their manhood" bizarre?

Yep, Barbra Walters did in her interview of Perot on 20/20.  I believe she then  
asked him if he thought she was "trying to prove her manhood" in that  
interview.  A sheepish dodge was his reply. (suprised?)
--

________________________________________________________________________
Scott Cunningham \ We're the NSA                                        \
Username: flagg  \ So your the ones I hear on the other end of my phone \
                 \ No, that's the FBI                                   \
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Support for young women in science
From: <RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Saturday, 26 Sep 1992 07:33:06 EDT
 rd.EDU> <92269.071259RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET><1992Sep25.171503.29950@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

   Suppose that a group is set up which enables young women to contact other
women scientists to get help and advice, but men are excluded from giving
or receiving advice.  Why is there any harm?  I won't respond to the personal
attacks of farthing@leland, but I WILL respond to the issue.

   Let us suppose that there is such a group for Computer Science.
Now, in Computer Science, the highest award is the Turing award, named by
the way after Alan Turing, a gay male.  To my knowledge, none of these awards
have ever been won by a woman.  If I am wrong, then perhaps one or two.  Now,
by excluding men from GIVING advice, you are excluding young women from
RECEIVING advice from Turing award winners.  I fail to see how this helps them.
Of course, a woman may primarily emphasise her emotional needs, and it so
happens that with HER, they are best met by a woman.  If so, this is fine.
But why on earth should the group IMPOSE this on her by its very structure?

   Of course you might argue that Turing award winners are not interested.
But I know in fact that many of them would be very happy to correspond with
a bright young woman and help her along.

   The same holds in other Sci. fields too, to a greater or lesser extent.

  Rohit Parikh
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Perot and women
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 10:06:35 GMT

Did anyone else find Perot's comments about the two female NBC
reporters being too harsh on him, and that "they're trying to prove
their manhood" bizarre?

Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,sci.med,alt.folklore.urban
From: schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz)
Subject: Aspirin, heart disease, and women?
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 04:36:11 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.011341.2517@leland.Stanford.EDU>
farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>
>Do you know, for
>example, if the "aspirin-a-day helps cardiac patients" claim works for
>women, since no women were included in this study?

The last time I heard this bizarre claim, I did a little digging on
Medline.  What I found was about 20 studies on the link between heart
disease and aspirin, dating back to the mid-1970s.  Most used both
sexes as subjects (a couple with several hundred each); some used women
only.  The largest and most recent study used over 1000 subjects of
each sex, and was reported in the popular press in March last year
('Aspirin lowers coronary risks: tests indicate principle applies to
both genders,'  Calgary Herald  March 16, 1991 pg F19).

That this is an urban myth seems the obvious conclusion.  If anyone has
a source for the story I'd be interested in seeing it.

-S. Schultz
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: <none>
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com (Michael Rivero)
Date: 29 Sep 92 15:43:23 PDT
Distribution: world
Organization: M&E (Division of EDS), Cypress CA


  Last Thursday, a story broke about a 5 year old girl, Marticia Gantler,
who had vanished from the Fox Hills shopping center in Culver City.

  Supposedly, the young girl had walked away from her grandmother while 
shopping and disappeared. The police, after conducting a house-to-house search, 
decided it was an abduction, put out a description over the radio and asked 
for help. 

  They got it in the form of a security guard at a Kentucky Fried Chicken 
store who spotted a girl matching the description and called 911. A man 
and woman were arrested despite their pleas of innocence, and the small 
child delivered back to the grandmother. The radio news, secure that the 
guilty parties were behind bars, exhorted the State Government for stronger
penelties for child abduction.

  While the grandmother (and an involved Aunt) accepted the child 
gratefully, something about the child's reactions caused the police to 
doubt whether it really was the missing child. Under questioning, 
and as they were being wired for a lie detector test, the 
grandmother and the Aunt admitted making up the whole abduction story
and led police to a shallow grave near Victorville where Marticia was buried,
24 hours _before_ her disappearance was reported to Culver City police.

  The women now claim that Marticia's death happened by accident when they
left her unattended in a bathtub. They made up the abduction story so as not
to lose Federal assistance money. The police, however, acting on information
not yet released to the public, have charged both women with murder.  The
man and woman who were arrested at the Fried Chicken stand, were released.

  The key lesson here is how quickly the media and press were to convict 
the alleged abductors, simply because it was a child as victim.  Even more
telling is how the theory of an abduction was readily accepted by all, again
because the victim was a child. Had it not been for the chance lookalike
at the Kentucky Fried Chicken stand, these two women would have gotten away
with murder. 

  This raises the question; Are all the kids on Milk Cartons really
abductees? 


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com  "Middle-aged Mutant Ninja Animator" |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|                       I CAME,  I SAW,  I DIVORCED                      |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
From: Laurie Mann
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Why Children
Date: 30 Sep 92 13:48:04 GMT
Reply-To: lmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com

Eric C. S. Dynamic writes
>allanc@cluster.cs.su.oz (Restless Wanderer) writes:
>>I'm quite serious,I do NOT understand why anyone would want kids.
>>Maschismo ? Womanhood.? Sorry but it sounds like sour grapes.....
>>I don't begrudge your 'need ' to be fathers/mothers,I just cannot fathom why,
>>with all this hatred would someone bother.
>It's the species' instinctive wisdom. Now that I have increasing feelings
>of wanting to be a father, I understand it very well: it is a gift of love
>and continuity. There could not be humans to try harder and try longer any
>other way. And I have loved to be alive and be aware, and life is enjoyable,
>even with so much pain in it. It will teach me myself again to experience
>the beingness of a child, and *I* will want to see that I can give them the
>benefits of my wisdom to enable them to have happier and more aware lives.
>It's a very deep aspect of the human psyche to want to see completion in the
>cycle of being. Men are no less affected by this than women.

Eric, I don't read this newsgroup very often, given the very high
noise-to-signal ratio here.  However, I want to acknowledge
the wisdom in what you've said here.  I don't know about "instictive
wisdom," but I'm generally glad I chose to have a child.  Yes, it's
been very tough (and as she's an adolescent, I know it can be even
harder soon!) at times.  She's an interesting child to have in 
the house, and, besides, she just got a hundred on her computer
test, so maybe she'll have her own account here soon.

*  NeXT: lmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com * GEnie:  Laurie.Mann  *
**** Vote to can George and Dan! **  Vote for CHANGE in 1992!****
***** "Hollywood still doesn't get it." Dan Quayle, 9/21/92 *****
* "No Dan, YOU still don't get it."  American Voters, Fall 1992 *
Xref: sparky soc.women:17205 alt.child-support:3372 soc.men:17126 soc.couples:3852
From: shedevil@vix.com (Anne P. Mitchell JD)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.couples
Subject: Re: What a Problem!!!
Date: 30 Sep 1992 08:30:42 -0700
Organization: Fathers' Rights & Equality Exchange
NNTP-Posting-Host: gw.home.vix.com

In a recent missive seeker@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Karen Lynn White) tells us:
*
*
*In article <1992Sep30.043039.26375@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
*
*Since you are using Indiana as an example I wonder if your example is
*true anywhere - in practice.

Yes, it is true in practice in some places [although I can't speak to
Indiana... Dale?]  Last I checked, the requirement that an NCP *must*
pay for college for their children was alive and well in, among other
places, Washington and New York.

I agree with Aaron that this is a heinous and indefensible law..I have
long said that such a law will be my first constitutional case [i.e. I
believe that such a law is unconstitutional and must be challenged].


-- 
   LOOKING FOR:  David Widdicombe, Hobson Woodward, Lorna Taylor & JJ Lancey
I am: Anne Mitchell, mom, & founder of the Fathers' Rights & Equality Exchange
Ask me about FREE!  FREE files available via anonymous ftp 128.45.1.1; dir /pub
			DE STELLA MARTIS VERE VENISTI
Xref: sparky soc.women:17434 soc.men:17401 alt.feminism:2145
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Affirmative Action (Re: The Politics Of Appeasement)
Date: 7 Oct 1992 02:14:06 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

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

>Here is a radical bit of food for thought.  Many people think that 
>childraising and homemaking are important but unrecognized and 
>undervalued jobs....
>So, let's treat childraising and homemaking as serious jobs.  
>Should we arrange federal funding to enable... 
>a kind of "scholarship" to learn 
>childraising and homemaking?

Now *this* is a great idea!  Lets actually *train* people to *parent*.
Then maybe we wouldn't have so many tragedies....

							--  Michal
Xref: sparky soc.women:17402 soc.men:17369 alt.feminism:2121
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Affirmative Action (Re: The Politics Of Appeasement)
Date: 6 Oct 92 07:21:21
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
Distribution: usa
	<BvoEn9.sD@cs.psu.edu> <1992Oct6.135122.15325@news.nd.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: slarsen@haydn.helios.nd.edu's message of Tue, 6 Oct 1992 13:51:22 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.135122.15325@news.nd.edu> slarsen@haydn.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:
>In article <BvoEn9.sD@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct5.214335.25648@news.nd.edu> slarsen@monet.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:
>>>
>>>Maybe it is because white men, as a group, do not have a strong 
>>>desire to move into fields which have been traditionally dominated 
>>>by women and/or minorities?
>>
>>I'm not so sure.  Are (white) male nurses on the rise, for example? 
>>White male secretaries?  Stats, anyone?  I'm just as curious.

>No stats, but my sister who is a nurse frequently mentions the 
>increasing numbers of male nurses.  I'm a secretary, and I've 
>never run into a male secretary. 

We had a male secretary at my work for a while.  A really good guy.
He's still there, but now he's the system manager (he didn't know much
about computers (other than word processing and such) when he started,
four years ago).  Perhaps this is common, and male secretaries don't
*stay* secretaries?

By the way, I notice that most of the articles on here are cross-posted
to soc.men and soc.women.  I could have sworn that one of the reasons I
heard for the creation of this group was to reduce the traffic about
"feminism" in soc.men.  Didn't work, I guess.

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
~Little round planet/in a big universe/sometimes it looks blessed/
 sometimes it looks cursed/Depends on what you look at, obviously/
 But even more it depends on the way that you see~ - Bruce Cockburn
From: clong@remus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Mattel and math avoidance in girls
Date: 2 Oct 92 05:14:09 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1ag6jmINNn6b@gap.caltech.edu>, Michal Leah Peri writes:

> The problem is that Mattel is promoting a negative stereotype of women
> and discouraging little children (I don't assume that only girls would
> play with the dolls) from doing their very best in math class.  

I agree that it might discourage children (I think this was the point
Susan Larsen was trying to make, but in a more roundabout way), but I
disagree that it's promoting a stereotype.  After all, it's a true
statement for most boys and girls, right?
-- 
Chris Long, 265 Old York Rd., Bridgewater, NJ  08807-2618