HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re:Who should take respon
X-To: MS S WILSON-CROSS
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 18:35:00 GMT

g90c5787@giraffe.ru.ac.za (MS S WILSON-CROSS) writes...
MSW> In article 92217.191448JLB155@psuvm.psu.edu, Jennifer Brown (
MSW> JLB155@psuvm.psu.edu) writes:

MSW> >Why should the father have to provide for the mother's choice?
MSW> >After all, she WAS the one who let the little brat grow in her
MSW> >womb for 9 months.  She could have stopped it, but didn't.

MSW> Having only just joined the network, I'm unaware of whether Jennifer was
MSW> speaking about a particular situation in a country with legalized abortion.
                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
MSW> However, if it was a blanket statement, then I'd like to point out that
MSW> in a large number of (admittedly repressive) countries, abortion is very
MSW> hard to obtain.  If a woman is reluctant to run the risk of often fatal or
MSW> maiming backstreet abortions, then she should hardly be regarded with the
MSW> contempt that Ms Brown's letter shows.
MSW>         Also, it's hardly the child's fault that his/her parents were a tad
MSW> inconvenienced" by his/her conception!  I am pro-choice, but I don't see ho
MSW> treating the foetus as inhuman is going to promote a respect
MSW> for life in all its forms: including a woman's body.  Rather self-defeating


Drop your weapons, Sara.  :-)

As it turns out, Jennifer's comments *were* only meant to be taken "as is" in
the context of a country with legalised abortion.

It is her view (I believe!), and many others, that in a country with legal
abortion, women have the choice to not be a parent, so therefore *men* should
have that right as well.

I believe that she would consider it hypocritical to allow men this similar
right in a country where abortion was illegal.   Indeed, I would agree with
you that her comments were "contemptuous," as you stated, if she had also
been referring to countries where abortion was illegal.

(Jennifer - If I have misrepresented you, I apologise)

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * I'm in shape ... round's a shape isn't it?
Newsgroups: soc.women
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Women are inferior
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com
Date: 4 Sep 92 10:19:38 GMT
 <1992Sep3.093001.1@mdcbbs.com> <1992Sep3.220909.1391@cbfsb.cb.att.com>
Organization: Electronic Data Systems, Unigraphics Division, Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: mcniel

In article <1992Sep3.220909.1391@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, joni@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (joni.dunlap) writes:
> In article <1992Sep3.093001.1@mdcbbs.com> rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:
>>In article <73740010@hpsad.sad.hp.com>, sam@hpsad.sad.hp.com (Vicky Hansen) writes:
>>> In soc.women, karypis@epx.cis.umn.edu () writes:
>>> 
>>>>>  It is true...  Women were not created equal.  They are clearly inferior
>>>>>  to men....
>>> 
>>> I will make the rash assumption that you are male.
>>> Then I will stoop to your level and answer:
>>>     Isn't it just like a man to make a blanket statement with absolutely
>>>     no details or supporting evidence.
>>> 
>>
>>  You SUCKER!  :)  My first assumption was that this was posted by a woman
>>to try and make men look bad, else why the anonymity?
>>
> 
> 
> 
> NO I think it was written by a man so your assumption would be that this
> was posted by a woman to try and make men look bad therefore making women
> look even worse, else why the anonymity? :) :)
> 
> Joni :)
-- 

  No, this was posted by a woman, who assumed we'ld THINK she was a woman and
then decide it HAD to b a man because she, er, he, I mean, ummmm, oh GEE
lookatthetimeIgottaLOTofworktocatchuponbye!



<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com  Middle-Aged Mutant Ninja Animator   |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|                    When 911 won't work,  .357 will!                    |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: bev@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu (Beverly Huntsberger)
Subject: Re: Hating Men with Full Force
Organization: Univ. of South Carolina, Columbia
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 19:19:59 GMT

In <1992Aug19.173757.1@fnalno.fnal.gov> holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman) writes:

>In article <92232.46198.6069870@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM>, 
>6069870@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
>> dearest joel,
>> 
>> i think you'd better check out the word "mysogyny" a bit closer
>> as it's not found in: webster's ii  new riverside university
>> dictionary nor is it found in the: seiko insterments  word power professional.
>> but at least you gave it the ol collage try,,,boy.

>I suppose that your ignorance is not surprising to anyone here.  At worst, joel
>can be accused of a spelling error, but Webster's New World Dictionary, Third
>Edition lists:

>mi sog y ny (mi saj'e ne) n. hatred of women, esp. by a man.

>Daniel B. Holzman                    | Eight Words the Witch's Rede Fufill:

	Yeah, but... but... what about his:

	 "seiko insterments  word power professional" ???  (lord ;)

	Bev
-- 
Bev Huntsberger		bev@grover.csd.scarolina.edu
			The University of SOUTH Carolina
Personally, I have nothing against incumbents.
I'm simply exercising my right to vote.
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician)
Subject: Re: FEMALE GYMNASTS
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 08:21:41 GMT
Organization: Society for the Preservation of E. coli

In article <1992Aug26.093756.1@mdcbbs.com> rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:
>  Interesting. Why were young male gymnists not studied? Do the
>researchers not think they are worthy of consideration? Or did the
>study show (or did the researchers assume) that the males, being on
>average stronger, just dont's suffer the same injuries? 

I take issue with the phrase, "being on average stronger."

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that.  Are you implying that a
top-level, female gymnast is not as physically strong as a top-level,
male gymnast?

Having worked around gymnasts, I'm not sure I'd agree.  As someone else
posted, the problem may be more related to the age of the competitor
rather than physical strength.  A 14-year-old's skeletal structure,
for instance, is not as developed as a 21-year-old's.

However, this would also depend upon when they started training.  I am
unsure as to when males typically start (though, if I recall
correctly, Bart Conner claimed to have "started very late" at the age
of about 14), but females often start when they're 6 or 7.  Given all
the physical punishment in gymnastics, I'm not that surprised to find
female gymnasts suffer a large amount of injury...but it's because
they're so young, not because they're female.

However, I do agree with your point, to some extent.  I hear about the
injuries suffered by female gymnasts and see a very good correlation
with what male athletes go through in football.  My basic question is
why they were looking at just females?  If I assume it's a typical
scientific study, it could simply be that the group studied was female
because the females were easier to study...and in the interests of
being accurate, the report reflects the fact that the studied group
was female.  It could be, as you imply, that they studied females
because we sort of "expect" males to have a list of injuries when they
are engaged in athletics.

-- 
Brian Evans                |     "Bad mood, bad mood...Sure I'm in a bad mood!
bevans@carina.unm.edu      |      I haven't had sex...*EVER!*" -- Virgin Mary
From: ad815@yfn.ysu.edu (John S. Kennedy)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Male/Female Wage Differences
Date: 4 Sep 92 18:11:49 GMT
Reply-To: ad815@yfn.ysu.edu (John S. Kennedy)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH


I ran across this message on Tri-State Online and I thought it might be
worthy of some comment:
 
________________________________________
     To: /media/jeanie/bb                  Msg #: 11098
   From: caren (Caren Cohen)                  On: 09/03/92  23:50
  About: #11097(above)                   Replies: 2
Subject: Re: Cable Bill
 
... and that women make 40 to 60 cents on the dollar for what a
man makes.
 
--Caren
----------------------------------------
 
Well, yes, that's looking at the figures as they come from the employer
to the employee --
 
With alot of my friends, counting alimony and child support, the woman
makes about $1.10 to every $1 that the man makes.
 
                John
-- 
** John S. Kennedy (513) 541-3078 axinar@tso.uc.edu 72217.416@compuserve.com
The opinions expressed in this message are those of the person speaking,
and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of St. E's Med Center, or the
NPTN, but Mr. Kennedy's opinions SHOULD be made federal law!
From: aaron@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Feminists ignore Cosmetics?....Why don't you guys get a JOB?
Date: 1 Sep 92 13:03:06 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

:  Men are allowed to carry a lot more excess weight before being considered
:  unattractive.

   The only justification for calling on people to eat less can be health - 
   the fact that in general people in the West eat more than is strictly
   necessary which might be considered a drain on the World's resources.

   The pressure on women to reduce weight is abominable. I feel that here
   in the UK things are improving but they may just be a subjective impression
   based on the social subgroups I frequent. Certainly I get the impression
   that there is enormous and unwarranted pressure in the USA. 

   I don't intend to belittle the efforts to reduce the pressures on women
   but it seems that in the UK at least that men are increasingly expected
   to remain thin and in fact there are now TV adverts for slimming products
   that appear to be aimed at men (or at least men appear in the adverts as
   those wishing to slim). Of course men are also expected to be muscular as
   well as lean. I wonder if this will lead to increase in male anorexia and
   bulimia? 

   It was recently pointed out in the UK paper 'The Guardian' that once
   people used to pay lots of money to be fat, and it was a status symbol,
   but now almost everyone in the West can afford to be fed the rich now
   spend there money on attempting to look anorexic. The article finished
   with a quote from someone who was helping rescue victims in the Ethiopian
   famine who said she almost felt envious of the emaciated state of the
   Ethiopian women, but sickened that she felt that way (the woman had been	   previously anorexic).

	Aaron Turner			aaron@minster.york.ac.uk
From: sam@hpsad.sad.hp.com (Vicky Hansen)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Impact of the absent father
Date: 1 Sep 92 14:22:25 GMT
Organization: HP Signal Analysis Division - Rohnert Park, CA

In soc.women, noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:

>  In numerous other studies the results were that children from
>  single-parent homes tend to achieve less and tend to get in trouble
>  more than children from two-parent homes.  I interpretted Mott's
>  conclusions as stating that the problem is not single-parent homes, but
>  lack of money in those homes, and low-levels of education for all those
>  single-parent mothers.

>  Why did I take exception to such thinking?  Well, because I think
>  fathers are important - very important - for children of both sexes.  I
>  think that children who have two good parents, even if they don't have
>  a great deal of money, tend to be well-adjusted and are more aware of
>  what it means to be a man or a woman.  I think children of two-parent
>  homes get the benefit of having parents who can relieve one another,
>  who are not always rushing from place to place just trying to keep up
>  with the children.  

I agree that children with 2 good parents are way ahead of the game.  I am
tired, however, of so many people blaming the problem on divorce.  Many times,
the children's troubles began long before the actual divorce by having 
a lousy home life that finally got so bad that divorce ensued.  There are
many households where either the father or the mother or both are *not*
available for the children or eachother.  These households are more likely
to end with single parents than the '2 good parent' households.

>  I think fathers are good at instructing children
>  how to do many things and on average are much better at that
>  instruction than are mothers.  Among those things are:  how to row a
>  boat, how to throw a baseball, ...
>  how to get up and go to work everyday - even when you don't feel like it, ...

On an average there are just as many things that a women could do better as
well.  However, kids don't get averages.  As a woman engineer, I do not feel
that a father would be better at balancing checkbooks.  I have been on a
baseball team (though I am lousy) and taught my ex how to paddle a canoe.
My ex worked 100-120 hours/week so maybe he *was* better at teaching them
about going to work every day -- I am better at teaching them to come home
and have a life.  He did not go to their ball games, plays, parties, etc.
so I do not believe they have suffered from the absence of someone who was
never there anyway.  In fact, they finally got to know him *after* the
divorce because I insisted that he take them for 2 weekends a month and 2
weeks in the summer (he had asked for 2 hours every other Sunday only).

I know there are some great fathers out there who have suffered an injustice
with their divorce but others have not.  Why is this series in soc.women
instead of soc.men?  Why are we not hearing from all those single moms who
are reaping all the benefits from all the money these men claim they are
putting out?
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel)
Subject: Re: Taking the Solo Road
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 16:07:20 GMT

Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:

>biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel) writes...
>HB> Will writes...
>HB> >Those Damn Humourless Activists...  :-)

>HB> Is that another veiled swipe at feminists, buddy? I'll just have to
>HB> ask you to step outside.

>Oh GOiD!  I was poking fun at *myself* for being so humourless as to take
>you to task, even though I knew damn well that you were being sarcastic.

So, what's the weather like outside?

Regards,
       H. Biesel s.N.a.
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Hating Men with Full Force
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 21:55:11 GMT

In article <4270024@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com> kurts@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Kurt Strain) writes:
>In soc.women, farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>> It's Crameresque.  You say all lesbigays are or support child
>> molesters because NAMBLA marches in some Gay Pride parades.  You say
>> all Republicans are racist because of David Duke.  You say all
>> feminists are man-haters because some are.
>
>
>What are you talking about?  Quit saying what I'm not sayin if you don't
>mind.

This was an unfortunate use of you to mean one.  Sorry if it sounded
as if I were accusing you of this.
From: stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Character (was: Hating Men )
Date: 4 Sep 92 04:45:51 GMT
Followup-To: soc.women
Organization: Murasami Labs

Diana St.Martin wrote:

> All of the examples you list are indeed good ones, but the question that comes to my mind is "Who defines character"?  It means many things to many people.  You obviously have one definition and I have another.

It's not who defines character, but rather what.

Some might say adversity. But we all face that to greater or lesser degree.
No, the truest test of character is _temptation_.

K'Char
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Hating Men with Full Force
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com
Date: 4 Sep 92 10:15:06 GMT
 <1992Aug21.183954.7830@ultb.isc.rit.edu> <21986@galaxy.ucr.edu> <21987@galaxy.ucr.edu> <99Q702Uo200=01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>
Organization: Electronic Data Systems, Unigraphics Division, Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: mcniel

> In article <21987@galaxy.ucr.edu>, starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu (aaron greenwood) writes:
>>
>> 
>> We should save our praise for women of character, women who have made
>> something of themselves and women who are positive examples of fully
>> developed human beings.  

  We should do the same thing for men as well. However, what we GET are
Congresswomen claiming that men are biologically incapable of warmth
and compassion. We get Susan Brownmiller claiming that all men
are rapists and that's all we are. We get the court systems acting on the basic
assumption that men are unfit as parents. We get Catherine Comins saying
that men aren't worth worrying about in cases of false rape charges; he's
guilty of _something_ and will learn a good lesson.  You have the local
charities saying that it's correct to worry about female homelessness while
ignoring male homelessness. Finally, you have Andrea Dworkin and her ilk
getting standing ovations for encouraging the random murder of men (just to
keep us in our place).

  Yeah, we'ld all like to stand up and focus our attention on the good people.
But, as bad economics drive out good economics, and bad government drives out
good government, bad press drives out good press. 



<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com  Middle-Aged Mutant Ninja Animator   |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|                    When 911 won't work,  .357 will!                    |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
From: deannab@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Deanna Bergstrom)
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 18:59:32 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: Feminists ignore Cosmetics?....Why don't you guys get a JOB?
Organization: HP Santa Rosa Site (NMD MTA MWTD)
Newsgroups: soc.women

 mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Meir I Green) writes:

>In article <1992Aug26.185005.29368@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> crussel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Carol A Russell) writes:
>>As a feminist I don't see what is wrong with decorating our bodies or our faces
>>in order to have fun, as part of a ritual, to improve our appearance, or 
>>whatever.  The problem comes
>>when we feel we *have* to look a certain way, or cover up our imperfections, in
>>order to please *someone else*.  And in our Western society we consider it

>>I've read Naomi Wolfe, and don't see how a woman who believes what she does 
>>would use cosmetics or jewelry as anything but something *she* enjoys.  I doubt
>>if she decorates herself for anyone but herself.  Which is the reason that 
>>sometimes I wear makeup and jewelry, sometimes I don't.  Depends on the mood.
>>Not what I think someone else (i.e. a male) wants me to do.


>But you would for a female!?  Why??

----------

I don't wear makeup very often... mostly just to "dress up" for special 
occasions.  I *do* wear jewelry, mostly earrings, most every day.

I look at all of this as "decoration", as way of expressing myself.  I
don't do it to attract men (they don't usually notice earrings, anyway,
and when it's a special occasion I'm usually with someone who sees me
"un-decorated" all the time :-).  I look at it as no different than
decorating my house or landscaping my yard or choosing particular art
or putting personal stuff around my cubicle at work...it's just
an expression of *me*.

I think it would be very boring to live in a world where no one "decorated"
themselves or anything else.  When I dress-up it's fun (it wouldn't be
fun if I "had" to do it every day, tho).

It *is* sad when women "won't go out of the house without their makeup".
I've written here before about the need for women in my work area to NOT
wear makeup because it will contaminate the microchips that we make, and
how this is very difficult for some of them.

But I don't agree that "NO feminists should wear makeup or jewelry".  There
is a difference between covering oneself up because one doesn't believe that
they are "presentable" unless they are covered up, whether with a veil or
makeup or whatever, and the "decorative" aspects.

Deanna

deannab@sr.hp.com
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel)
Subject: Re: Hating Men with Full Force
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 16:35:26 GMT

slarsen@monet.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:

...[ ]...

>I would have to agree with you on this, Katie.  In my dialog with women
>at workbreaks, on the front porch, the store, anyplace where women gather
>exclusive of men, man-bashing abounds.  And the most vocal at it are the 
>"mainstream women" (as opposed to any hue of "feminist).  I think that 
>some of the men who are claiming that such acts are "outrageous" and 
>that net.women must be exaggerating are completely missing the point. 
>This man-bashing DOES exist, and it happens so frequently that I believe 
>that women use it as a female-bonding mechanism.  This is not a positive
>situation, IMO, but just because we don't like to hear about it does 
>not change the fact that it is happening.

It should not come as a great surprise that men do something similar,
although the men I know usually restrict themselves to uttering the single
word "women..." in that time-honored fashion that indicates a mixture
of equal parts exasperation and acceptance. Among the habitues of pool
halls and bowling alleys, the terms "broads..." is more common, although
the sentiment is the same.

Regards,
       H. Biesel s.N.a.
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Women are inferior
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com
Date: 4 Sep 92 10:54:44 GMT
Organization: Electronic Data Systems, Unigraphics Division, Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: mcniel

In article <32620081@hpmwmat.sr.hp.com>, mikep@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Mike Powell) writes:
> 
> 
> 	  There are only two kinds of people.....
> 
> 	  those that start flame wars....
> 
> 	  and those that don't.
> 


        There are only two kinds of people.....

	Those that split people into two kinds.....

	And those that DON'T!  :)





<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com  Middle-Aged Mutant Ninja Animator   |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|                    When 911 won't work,  .357 will!                    |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Xref: sparky soc.women:16105 soc.men:15876