HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: The Gender Lie
Date: 8 Apr 92 04:39:25 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Labs, Livermore CA

In article <L7RViB1w164w@netlink.cts.com> jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
:The following view of behavior is having a profound impact on society:
: 
:* For the most part, gender differences are acquired during development.
: 
:* For the most part, homosexuality is congenital.

	Actually, nobody knows for sure.

:A few observations on this view:
: 
:* The exact opposite is consistent with the central role of 
:heterosexuality in reproduction and the central role of reproduction 
:in evolution.

	Have you ever heard of worker insects?

	They do not reproduce, but they help others reproduce, thus
ensuring the propagation of their genes.

	This has been proposed as a hypothesis for why some people are
homosexual. 

:* Variations in the hormonal responses of males to environmental
:stimuli are a almost entirely a function of sociosexual status.
: 
:* Hormones affect developmental paths as well as immediate responses.
: 
:* Western civilization has been most successful while holding the 
:evolutionarily consistent view.  

	I guess you haven't heard of ancient Greece...

	Just consider Socrates and Plato, how they spoke admiringly of
the beauty of young men...

	Try reading Dover's _Greek Homosexuality_ some time.

:* The inconsistent view first gained widespread currency via the 
:feminist and gay movements in the early 1970's.  
: 
:* The American Psychiatric Association voted to take homosexuality 
:off its list of pathologies around the same time.

	Why not?

:* The incidence of extramarital sex, abortion, divorce, single and
:step parenthood, child delinquency, infertility, birth control and
:abortion all rose rose sharply during and after that time.  Child abuse, 
:child molestation, rape, homosexuality and corrupt practices appear to 
:have increased as well (ie: The socially acceptable explanation of all
: recent negative changes as "increased reporting" appears as sophistry
: given objectively measured correlations in related areas of society.)

	HORSESHIT.

	Have you ever heard of the scandal of how Freud came to
believe that his patients had been _fantasizing_ their molestations?

	And prostitution has been around for centuries. I'm surprised
that this self-styled social critic has not noticed _that_.

:* The standard of living, when adjusted to include the contribution of 
:homemakers and intact families, had been rising until that time.  
: 
:* It has been declining since.

	Explain how that's happened.

	I thought our economy exploded under the last President we've
had (lots of :-)'s).
From: chungkuo@ais.org (Shawn FitzGerald)
Subject: How do *you* say 'harassment'?
Organization: UMCC
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 23:34:45 GMT

I would like to say that, for the most part, my personal encounter with
'sexual harassment' appears to be over. (see thread "A neat Story...") My
supervisors have told the woman (I still do not know anything about this
woman, not even a name) that I have been 'spoken to about his [my]
behavior.' This particular horror story has, if not a happy, at least an
acceptable ending.

However, the whole thing still rankles. Iam now sitting in our lab, working.
A friend has just handded me a book called "Female Orgasm", I would like to
talk about it, but of course certain words might creep out of my mouth which
some person might find offensive. So, I'll just sit here and say nothing.

It really pisses me off that I would have to be afraid of discussing
something in an *academic* setting. What kind of policy is it for an
institution of 'learning' that causes a portion of its students to feel
afraid of talking about certain things? I don't really need to point out
what position most of this population assumes durring urination.

At any rate, thanks for the comments/sympathy. It helped.


-- 
   Shawn FitzGerald           |   chungkuo@ais.org
   (Rational Romantic         |   University of Michigan
    Mystic Cynical Idealist)  |   Computing Club
"I love you so I keep dreaming . . ." -Bananas, _The House of Blue Leaves_
From: stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Frat bashing re re visited
Date: 10 Apr 92 11:53:05 GMT
Distribution: na

David Ash quotes
+ In article <s0o3oINNd7g@network.ucsd.edu> erwin@bend.ucsd.edu (Sean Erwin)  
writes:
+ 
+ >>We do *not* exclude anyone else. If you are a male student at our  
university,
+ >>or any of our affiliates, we will give you a chance to join. I also notice
+ >>not *once* in this posting do you mention sororities, though they are as 
+ >>sexist as fraternities. Why is that?
+ >
+ >Here you admit that fraternities are sexist, as well as sororties.  The
+ >difference is that a man can do a lot more harm to a woman than a woman can
+ >do to a man....
+ 
+ Why?

[hmmmm...shows how closely I was reading this thread]

Men and women can be equally violent. The size of your assailant will
determine the method of attack. A big, hulking guy will likely try to beat
you to a pulp. A tiny, petite woman is more likely to stab/shoot you.

Which would you prefer?

K'Char
From: stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: SNUFF FILMS sighted in TIME MAGAZINE!!! (Dworkin and MacKinnon, too)
Date: 16 Apr 92 00:43:00 GMT
Distribution: na

Stewart Schultz writes


+ A lawyer summarized it thus: "If you're furthering the interests
+ of a disadvantaged group, it's not discrimination, it's not censorship,
+ it's affirmative action."  The logic here seems to be that if you
+ turn down the volume on men's voices, that's a good thing because it
+ levels the playing field for women's voices.

Ahh...Orwell was a few years off...I wonder what's next?

K'Char
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Japanese Women's Lib
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com
Date: 13 Apr 92 15:02:13 GMT
Organization: M&E (Division of EDS), Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: rivero

In article <r#qj-dl.sheaffer@netcom.com>, sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>>In article <HaqqiB1w164w@netlink.cts.com>, jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
>>> How and why do American males feel about the increasing liberation 
>>> of Japanese women?
> 
>    The amazing thing (to me, at least) is how incredibly *happy* so 
>    many women seem there, especially the younger ones. (Maybe they're
>    happy because they know it's the MEN who will end up having to
>    work so devilishly hard!) I have *never* seen anyplace where the
>    women laugh and enjoy themselves with such abandon. I don't THINK
>    you can fake that, it seems too real, too spontaneous and widespread.

  It's like the way the French women seem to find office flirtation
a fun and normal way of life (and get panicked if it stops). Feminism
here in the U.S. seems to want women to be UNhappy at everything, to not
find pleasure anywhere at all, and to complain at every opportunity.
It's like, even the nice non-sexist people aren't supposed to emjoy
each others company any more! It's politically uncorrect to smile!

>    
> 
> In article <1992Apr6.111001.1@mdcbbs.com> rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:
>>  Simply WONDERFUL (the resultant confusion will wreak their economic
>>advantage)!
>>
>    Don't get your hopes up too high!
> 

  I can dream, right? I was at the Columbia Studios the day the
"Columbia" sign came down and "SONY" went up. That was the day
I decided that using the stealth bomber to drop feminists and lawyers onto
Japan might be a good idea, even more effective than "Fat Man"! :) 



<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  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!                      |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: pro-choice == pro-(womens' only) choice?
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 16:43:53 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.211244.9936@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu> bev@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu (Beverly Huntsberger) writes:
>In <1992Apr06.160847.22990@sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>
>
>>In article <1992Apr3.045457.14159@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>>>But his wallet typically *IS*. Why narrow the question to only biology? 
>>>Biology is not the only thing that's important here.
>
>	Oh, biology. I tried that. I didn't like it.
>
>	Geez. We're not philosophizing  about
>	"the study of life". 
>
>	It's called "My Body". Yeah, say that.
>	See how it feels.
>
>	Not the same as "my wallet", imnsho.
>
>	But, you may be different. Maybe you really
>	were born with your wallet intricately
>	interwoven into your abdomen. I suppose
>	it's possible.

That's the way the law treats us, at least. Walking wallets. How empowering.
How consciousness-raising. Ptui.

								- Kevin
From: mort@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Jeff Mortensen)
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 10:54:07 GMT
Subject: Re: financial planning and more maternity leave stuff
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: soc.men

In soc.men, wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie) writes:

> 
> 	To my way of thinking that's much more *responsible* and more
> likely to leave us contented than "Oh, I don't need to worry.  My 
> company is mandated by the government to pay me for a year and then give
> me my job back with retro-active seniority, raises, and accrued vacation
> time.  I *am* a woman, after all".

Well, I'm impressed there is one responsible couple in america.  I thought 
there where none left.  I'm glad you think your little world is so
perfect, and others could learn from you.  Today, there are millions
of people who are responsible but are not or lose what you have in any
stability.  Is it their fault, the governments, or yours? I have yet
to see any laws which allow any person male or female to leave their
jobs for a year with pay and be allowed back.  These are policies of
the individual companies.  I see no problem with putting in a few bucks
to back a company that has a day care center, or a prenatal policy to 
help employees.  It would be another incentive for good employees.

Lighten up dude!  you have a great arrangment and seems lucky to me.

when you have kids, maybe you to would appreciate a company who cares
about you and your family. 
> 
Jeff
> 
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Subject: Re: pro-choice == pro-(womens' only) choice?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, San Diego Division
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1992 21:24:20 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.192409.4784@watserv1.waterloo.edu> lstewart@watserv1.waterloo.edu (L. Stewart -- IS      Office 1058) writes:
>Do men have or should they have post-natal rights?

Do men have? Questionable -- depends on both the state in which the parties
live and the (usually flawed) implementation of that state's interpretaiton
of family law.  Generally, if the man has a sanctioned relationship (i.e.,
marriage with the woman and/or some years worth of established 'father-
figure-hood' to the child) he has more 'right' than men who are casual
acquaintances of the women involved.

Should they?  You bet.  Within the framework of the current system, I'm
speaking here.  If we are going to make men responsible, we really need to
incorporate them more completely into the paradigm.  Men are shafted right
now.


>Does the man have a right to a child's custody in a situation
>where he is the father of record but only aquainted with the
>mother?            

Depends.  See caveats above.  A whole mess of judges still figure men
aren't competent as parents, and won't award them custody.  Other judges
think differently.  California, I understand, has committed to making all
custody judgements to be JOINT custody unless there is a compelling reason
not to.  (But that's in the case of marriage, again.  I don't know the  
leaning of the court for unmarried persons).

>Does a man have the right to refuse responsibility for a
>child when the woman decides to continue the pregnancy and
>he would rather she didn't?

I don't believe he currently does in any state in the US, although some
states notion of 'enforcement' is lip service.  The theory is that he
owes support to the child, not to the mother.  So what she did or didn't
agree to is not a part of his responsibility.  Always assuming a child is
born of this continued pregnancy.

Yo, before anybody jumps on their hot button:  I am trying to answer the
questions raised, here.  I'm not supporting the current implementation,
and frankly have a lot of problems with it.   

Adrienne Regard
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: ten commandments
From: econrad@valhalla.cs.wright.edu (Eric van Fossen Conrad)
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 00:57:56 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Wright State University

In a spirit of repentance for my prior posts critical of feminists, I
offer this post...

              THE GODDESS'S TEN COMMANDMENTS

1. Thou shalt have no gods before me.  Goddesses are okay.

2. Thou shalt not display photographs of naked women except at feminist
   approved conventions.

3. Thou shalt not invoke the name of the feminist cause or of its
   approved organizations in vain.

4. Remember the Susan B. Anthony dollar and keep it holy.

5. Honor thy mother, but not thy father for he is a potential rapist.

6. Thou shalt not commit murder unless the victim be thy abusive
   husband.

7. Thou shalt not masturbate if thou be male for thou tendeth to be
   messy.  If thou be female, it beeth an altogether different matter
   as all laws shalt be kept off thy body.

8. Thou shalt not steal unless it qualifieth as Affirmative Action.

9. Thou shalt not bear witness against another feminist unless she
   backslideth.

10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house unless thy neighbor
   happeneth to be thy miserable lousy cheating ex-husband.


-- 
-- Eric Conrad
This space for rent.
From: cnh5730@maraba.tamu.edu (Charles Herrick)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Now she's bashing men in general (was: Frat bashing re re visited
Date: 9 Apr 92 22:59:08 GMT

Sean Erwin writes
> I have seen many examples of fraternities promoting
> the ideal of women-as-sex-object, and never the ideal of  
woman-as-human-being.
> Granted, this is a problem with men in general


Could you try to be just a bit more misandric? I mean if you want to  
classify men-in-general as promoters of "women-as-sex-object," you might  
as well really let your hair down and just call us all rapists and scum.

It would be, oh, so ... honest of you, wouldn't it.


And you females wonder why men are so incredibly pissed-off at feminist  
man-bashers?


get someone to run out and pick up a clue for you.

Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion
From: jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood)
Subject: Re: You want to win.
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 15 Apr 92 13:01:50 CDT

In article <6r9trvm@rpi.edu> mcgead@operators.its.rpi.edu (Darren S. Mcgeary) writes:
>  
>Typical anti-choice anti-sex pro-forced birth facist rightwinger DJR clone.
>
>
>-- 
>Darren McGeary - Nice Guy(TM)                 mcgead@rpi.edu
>Owner and General Manager                     Darren_McGeary@mts.rpi.edu
>The Macho Kings                               1990 NIL Champions
>PRO-CHOICE - THE AMERICAN WAY


 Darren, your comment is interesting. Let us know when your girl-
friend or 'one night stand' calls you up and drops this line on you,
"Darren, I'm pregnant and I'm going to keep the baaaaaaaaby. See
ya later.... bye....". 

 Let's talk choice, anti-sex and pro-forced facist rightwinger shit then,
boy.


 Jon Wood - Nice guy when I decide to be.


Newsgroups: soc.men
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Women for Nerdy White Males?
Date: 17 Apr 92 19:11:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.x+2j14m.sheaffer
Distribution: na
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

Well, it IS true that the extreme man-like assertivness of North
American women, in comparison with those in the rest of the world, makes this
subject keep coming up. (In such an environment, it becomes difficult
for many "consciousness-raised" women to find partners more masculine
than themselves! The men have been "softened" at the same time that
women have been trained to become steel-hard.)

A BAD idea: "mail-order brides". The reasons are obvious.
  
A much better idea: "Go abroad, young man." Arrange to spend 6 months or
more in some other country, on some other continent. Attend school there,
take a job there, whatever. If you do so, and make some reasonable efforts
to meet some nice young ladies, I don't think you'll have any problem
meeting a suitable mate. (Hell, I was APPROACHED by marriage-minded young
ladies when travelling abroad!) If you take time to get to know each
other, your chances are excellent for a mutually-satisfying relationship.
-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!

     "In the 1970's the world will undergo famines - hundreds of millions
     of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs 
     embarked upon now ... in 1985, when it is calculated [under the most
     optimistic scenario] that the major die-back will be over, ..."
       
                       Dr. Paul Ehrlich, "The Population Bomb," 1968
From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: RFD: Nonprofit Corp. to Aid Japanese Feminism
Date: 16 Apr 92 15:16:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: netlink.PmXBJB1w164w
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

Duane Hentrich writes:
>In article <97kaJB1w164w@netlink.cts.com>, jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery) 
writes:
>|> hit on something that American males and American feminists can
>...
>|> American males want to debilitate Japanese businessmen who are
>...
>|> American females want to help liberate their oppressed sisters in
>...
>|> Japan.  It seems like a marriage made in heaven!  The only question
>|> is, "Is it too good to be true?"
>
>Actually that question is too facetious even for me. 
 
Having already been down to get info on nonprofit incorporation
from the Secretary of State's office, I have to take exception to
your characterizing my question as "facetious".  I really think U.S.
businesses would contribute large sums of money to an organization that 
effectively promoted Japanese feminism.  Having talked to a few wealthy
people about this, I'm not even sure I want to set it up as a nonprofit.
There may be Real Money here.

To be honest, my main concerns here are 1)  I'm not sure that such an
organization is necessary.  2)  I'm not sure it would be "playing fair."

--                    
INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!nosc!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 435-6181
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Subject: Re: pro-choice == pro-(womens' only) choice?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, San Diego Division
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 1992 20:57:31 GMT

In article <1992Apr06.160847.22990@sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>
It was just pointed out to me through email that this has somehow been
propogated to soc.women and soc.men.  I'm not currently reading these
groups and so I won't be propagating my responses to these groups.

Doesn't mean I'm ignoring you; it means I'm not reading you (and therefore
ignoring you (-:).

Adrienne Regard
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Japanese Women's Lib
Date: 13 Apr 92 16:35:26 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Labs, Livermore CA

In article <1992Apr11.170914.5394@news.lrz-muenchen.de> TRINGHAM@usmv01.usm.uni-muenchen.de (Tringham, Neal) writes:
>In <r#qj-dl.sheaffer@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com writes:
>
>> >In article <HaqqiB1w164w@netlink.cts.com>, jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
:: :: How and why do American males feel about the increasing liberation 
:: :: of Japanese women?
:: 
::    The amazing thing (to me, at least) is how incredibly *happy* so 
::    many women seem there, especially the younger ones. (Maybe they're
::    happy because they know it's the MEN who will end up having to
::    work so devilishly hard!) I have *never* seen anyplace where the
::    women laugh and enjoy themselves with such abandon. I don't THINK
::    you can fake that, it seems too real, too spontaneous and widespread.
::    
:
:The only Japanese I have ever personally known was a woman. She hated the
:society from top to bottom, starting with `attitudes towards women' and
:working up to `attitudes towards foreigners' via `company practices' and
:`how to say what you really think'. Yes, it's anecdotal, but I
:think you have to be VERY careful when making judgements about what people
:from another culture really feel on the basis of two weeks' experience,
:particularly when that culture is as concerned with appearances as Japan's.
:I'm sure many Japanese women are quite happy with their lot. I wouldn't
:care to bet on all, or even necessarily a majority.

	I would be very interested in learning some details. I already
know about a lot of Japanese people's attitude toward other ethnic
groups -- that the United States is hampered by a superabundance of
blacks and Puerto Ricans and so forth -- and the way that resident
Koreans are treated, and so forth. And calling American workers
lazy... well, maybe. And about unwillingness to face up to the
military empire-building of half a century ago, while presenting Japan
as a victim of American nuking. And the Japanese educational system...

/Loren
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
From: albert@sevenlayer.cs.wisc.edu (Joseph Albert)
Subject: Birthrates in various countries.
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Madison -- Computer Sciences Dept.
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 07:52:07 GMT

>In article <1992Apr7.163207.1523@lmpsbbs.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Br
onis Vidugiris) writes:

>I'm a little skeptical about the high standard of living -> low birthrate
>argument myself.  It could be a third factor (such as increased literacy
>and/or education) causing both, for example.

Gee, something Bronis and I agree on :-) Actually, it could also be a 
fourth factor. Countries with high birth rates are typically countries
where women have lower status and less power as compared to women in
other countries. In particular, they don't have control over their
fertility and sexuality. They are married off very early by their
families who view female offspring as a financial burden. (Some countries
in Southern Asian and the Middle East still have auction blocks for 
brides-- well, the lucky ones become brides, some of the not so lucky
ones later find themselves chained to beds in brothels in places like Bangkok
or Manila).

In any case, some of the women in countries with high birth rates, can find
themselves mothers very early in life. This prevents them from having
the time to pursue their education and puts them in a marriage for
a larger part of their fertile period, where the lack of either the
right to say no to their husband or access to birth control or abortions
creates the higher birth rates.

Joseph Albert
albert@cs.wisc.edu
Newsgroups: soc.men