HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall)
Subject: Re: Another right to not support?
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 01:14:00 GMT

In article <32620073@hpmwmat.sr.hp.com> mikep@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Mike Powell) writes:
>	
>kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall) writes:
>
>>If a man wants children, he should find the right mate and they should be
>>in agreement on starting a family.
>
>----------------------------
>
>	Let's apply the acid test to this statement.........  in an
>	equal society, one should be able to swap genders in any statement
>	(or at LEAST find gender neutral terms) and have the statement
>	still ring true...    
>
>	Here goes....
>
>-----------
>
>	"If a woman wants children, she should find the right mate and
>	they should be in agreement on starting a family."
>
>----------- 
>	
>	O.K. I might agree, in principle, to this...  But is this where
>	women would want to place responsibility for successful child raising?
>
>	While it is easy to write the statement to place the responsibility
>	on the man (as was originally written, I don't believe that
>	women would appreciate that same type of overall responsibilty placed
>	on them.  Actually though, it might make more sense... because for
>	every marriage that has failed, there was always a woman that said
>	"yes".

	Uhm, sometimes it's the man who says "yes".  :->
	My sister asked her husband.

>
>	Hmmmm...
>
>	-Mike-
>
>
>


 Yes, I think this statement works both ways.  I did not intentionally write
 the sentence to place the responsibility on the man.  The responsibility
 lies with both parents.  The sentence was written in regards to a statement
 about women aborting without notifying men and that "men were deprived of
 their children".  Men should not be able to impregnate women against their
 will nor force a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.  A man can
 not be deprived of his children until they are born.

 I wish our society would place importance on how much effort goes into
 a strong solid relationship and the stresses of parenthood.  And that the
 goal is to build a solid foundation between two people and then make a
 decision together to have children.  In my teen years, I remember the
 feeling that women had to "trick" men into marriage and parenthood 
 because men were so freaked about losing their freedom.  I chose a
 career that would support me "after getting married, having kids, and
 being abandoned".  Maybe not reality, but that is what the world looked
 like to me.  (BTW, I'm in a wonderful committed relationship and we have
 decided not to have children.  We'll adopt older children in the future
 and help our families with the many neices and nephews we have.)

 I'd really like to see parenthood become a choice for both men and women.
   
 Janice Kendall    kendall@adobe.com    ...!{decwrl|sun}!adobe!kendall

		"Creativity overcomes violence."
				John Bradshaw on "Homecoming"
Xref: sparky soc.women:15163 talk.rape:2099
From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: soc.women,talk.rape
Subject: Re: lioness method
Date: 12 Aug 92 11:39:51 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1992Aug12.091708.202334@uctvax.uct.ac.za>, msncra01@uctvax.uct.ac.za writes:
> In article <1992Aug11.131917.18787@hobbes.kzoo.edu>,
> tweaver@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Tim Weaver) writes:
> 
>> I think most of the rhetoric at the beginning was written with the intention
>> of shocking complacent women into taking some action.  A curious form of
>> patronization. (You don't know how to take care of yourself, so I'll tell
>> you).  I agree that effective action is better than being a passive victim,
>> but the tone of the article was definitely presumptious at best.
> 
> There seems to be much criticism for the lioness article, but I can't help
> feeling that it is purely _criticism_. Surely an article like that is a good
> article, because it provides some very practical information, some actual
> dirty-tricks combat advice which is going to be more useful than a lot of
> theorising in the midst of an attack. The point about foot reflexes is
> interesting. I am sure if one is wearing high-heels and can make the
> connection, it would be devastating. What do the original authors think of the
> criticism (sorry, I've forgotten who you were). As for the idea about
> recovering, I would imagine one's chances in an attack situation are better if
> one imagines that one will suffer _extreme_ damage. This is not to say that it
> is true, but when attacked one doesn't want to pause and evaluate one's odds of
> recovery. There is a story - I've forgotten who the guy was, or where I heard
> it, sorry - about some commander who sailed with his troops to a foreign shore
> to wage some war against their enemies. Once they had disembarked, he burnt all
> their ships, and turned to his troops and said "That should put iron in your
> souls; there's no going back now." 

That is attributed to Columbus.

It is also malarky.

However, the point is valid. One of the principles of war is if you are
outnumbered by a sizeable, but not insurmountable, foe, you put your armies
back up against a mountain, and they have nowhere to run, they fight to the
death. As your opponents can run, and know you can not, they must decide whether
to fight to the death or run away themselves. (Please note, this should ONLY be
used where you MUST win the battle.)

The intersting thing about battles is the soldier is not really hoping to
kill or be killed--he wants his enemy to flee so that he himself does not risk
being killed.

Placing a potential rapists in the same situation--if you attack me you may be
harmed far worse than you wish--can help prevent rapes. Just be aware that to
8% of the rapists, this is going to enrage them, and if they do not leave you
be, you might not have to worry about recovery.

DC


Newsgroups: soc.women
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Pro Choice Election S
X-To: MICHAEL POLEN
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 18:15:00 GMT

mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes...

MP> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
MP> |>
MP> |> RF> Taking the battle to the enemy means demonstrating against the antis;
MP> |> RF> such places as the home of Operations Rescue people, at the homes of
MP> |> RF> anti-choice candidates, at the functions of anti choice groups.
MP> |>     ^^^^^^^^^^^
MP> |> Again, I point out that this terminology is probably a deliberate attempt
MP> |> being inflammatory, though I am *not* "flaming" you for doing so.  Still,
MP> |> those who live by the sword (or by fire...) are destined to die by the sw
MP> |> as well.
MP> |>
MP> |> Prepare to have LOTS of people flame you and call you "anti-life" or
MP> |> "pro-death".  I will not be one of them, however.
MP> |>
MP> I love this "I won't point out you're an asshole but I figure everyone else
MP> will."   This is trying to be inflammatory while wearing an asbestos suit.
MP> Fortunately in everyone else's eyes, you got burnt.

Bah humbug.  You got me there.  :-)


MP> You make the assumption that someone who is pro-choice is pro-death or even
MP> pro-abortion.  Not necessarily true.

Actually, when I said "pro death," I was not making any reference to the
debate over the death penalty, I was just commenting on various "pro life"
ways of attacking the opposite position.  Besides which, I *cannot* see why
anyone would have the gall to compare the abortion debate with the capital
punishment issue, as many people *have* done.

Finally...Although I have been accused of believing that "pro choice" =
"pro abortion," this is not actually what I believe.  I realise that the
difference is subtle, and believe me, I have been burned enough times because
of the distinction...

---
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 * Slaying foul maidens and rescuing fair dragons!
-- 
Ross Ridge - The Great HTMU					     l/	 //
								    [OO][oo]
ross@zooid.guild.org						    /()\/()/
uunet.ca!zooid!ross						     db	 //
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: escr@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (elizabeth)
Subject: Opinions wanted on Faludi's _Backlash_
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 18:06:35 GMT


I just finished reading Susan Faludi's BACKLASH and would like to know
what you all thought of it...does it make sense or is it a bunch of crap?
I'm not going to post my own opinions yet so as not to bias the replys
I get :).

If this has already made the rounds I humbly apologize, and would ask
someone to direct me to somewhere I can catch up on the subject or e-mail
me instead of posting...

thanks in advance..
elizabeth

P.S. Just so you know, I've cross-posted to soc.women and soc.men
so I can get both sides...
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel)
Subject: What bugs you?
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 19:18:43 GMT

Everyone has numerous legitimate complaints, some small, some big.
I'd like to know what single aspect of American society bugs women
the most.

Some women I've talked to about this subject were greatly annoyed
by some apparently minor aspect, as, for example, the New York law,
recently overturned, which prohibited the exposure of the female
breast. Others had more global or less well-defined concerns,
such as sexism, unequal power, and the like. Most had at least one
sure-fire subject that really got under their skin, and prompted them
to mount a soapbox, or barricade, depending upon the occasion.

I'd be interested to see if there is any general concensus, and what
can be done to remedy things.

Regards,
       H. Biesel.

Xref: sparky soc.women:15162 soc.men:14884 sci.bio:2912 sci.skeptic:14159
From: w.p.coyne@newcastle.ac.uk
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,sci.bio,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Biological Sex Differences?
Date: 3 Aug 92 10:13:38 GMT
Reply-To: w.p.coyne@newcastle.ac.uk
Organization: Chemical & Process Engineering Dept, University of Newcastle, UK.

sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:


>It's encouraging to see Loren recognize that biology and economics *can*
>encourage the sexes to behave differently! But as we all know, when
>we see men and women in the different human societies acting in ways
>to maximize their genetic output (males attempting to spread their
>genes widely, females attempting to interest males in nest-building),

   I read a while back that there is a high rate of adultery among 
both males and female humans, with females tending to be more likely
to engage in extra-marital matings near the peak fertility period in
their menstural cycle (sorry I can't remember the reference.)
    
    So both males and females can use biology as an "excuse" for why
they commit adultery.


>I must reemphasise that the above quotes are *not* from Steven Goldberg
>(or Dan Quayle!), but from Mr. and Mrs. Sagan. Judging from what is
     ^^^^^^^^^^

The recent Quayle "potatoe" affair was brilliant:-)
From: ivy@hpscit.sc.hp.com (Ivy Griffiths)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: ******PMS******question
Date: 12 Aug 92 17:35:31 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Santa Clara, CA

Try a book at a health food store by Susan Lark, MD its on PMS self help
I don't know the exact title, but she is a firm believer in vitamins, diet
exercise, stress avoidance, etc.  Plus she talks about the fundamental
technical issues about what is going on in your body nutritionally,
hormonally, and emotionally.  I would also recommend getting a female
gyn.  I left my last male gyn after a similar discussion.  No you don't
have to put up with it, but...everyone is different so what works for one
person may not work for you.  It'll take some work, but yes, as you feel
right now, you probably feel anything is worth it.

Good luck
Ivy 
From: mikep@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Mike Powell)
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 05:19:02 GMT
Subject: Re: REQUEST from GIRLS:  List of 20 WORST/UNORIGINAL ways to ask a girl out
Organization: HP Santa Rosa Site (NMD MTA MWTD)
Newsgroups: soc.women


	One of the worst...


	"I love you.  Please take my wallet."

	--- runner-up from the search for the "seven most powerful words..."

	-Mike-
From: SALIMM@MAINE.MAINE.EDU
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: REQUEST from GIRLS: List of 20 WORST/UNORIGINAL ways to ask a girl
Date: 20 Aug 92 18:17:02 GMT
 <32620074@hpmwmat.sr.hp.com>
Organization: University of Maine System

I think the emphasis on money regarding the previous listing "I love
you, take my wallet" or something to that affect is pathetic, materialist
and bloody immoral.  Treat people like human beings and believe it or
not, they will treat you back, very nicely.  Stop objectifying women,
better still, do not think that they can be bought.
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy)
Subject: Female Heads of State(Norway et al)
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 06:31:32 GMT

cindy@solan10.solan.unit.no (Cynthia Kandolf) writes:

>PS Women in Norway once kept on and on about the right to vote too.
>Now we have a female prime minister, and since the head of the
>leading opposition party is also a woman, our PM after the next 
>election will also almost surely be a woman.  Is this situation
>unique?

In the sense of having successive heads of state be female? Probably yes, 
although women have served multiple terms several times(Thatcher, Gandhi,
and my country's Mary Eugenia Charles who is now into her 3rd 5-year term).
Jones
-- 
Jones M Murphy Jr                                        (212) 602-4375
NatWest Investment Bancorp, National Westminster Bank PLC
100 Wall Street, New York, NY10005                   FAX (212) 269-0113
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Another pogrom (was Re: Another program)
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 17:23:52 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.171926.23689@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
)In article <1992Aug12.030724.7549@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
))In article <1992Aug11.001419.9678@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
)
))I think this is interesting.  I'm curious as to whether the women
))doing the touching are flirting, harassing, or are "just" touching.
))Obviously, some touching is flirting and some is sexual harassment,
))but how about a touch on the arm or back?
)
)Current interpretation leaves it all up to the reaction of the touchee,
)as I understand it.
)
)This makes it a non-objective term.

A little more on this...

Here's a "quiz" item on Sexual Harssment from "Industry Week"

"Jackie thinks Bob is very well built.  She often stares at his body
when she thinks he isn't looking.  Although he hasn't, tod her,
Bob has noticed Jackie looking and, frankly, it makes him uncomfortable.
Sexual harssment?"

The offical answer is "yes", according to Industry Week.

So, part of the point is that one doesn't need such an extreme example as
ljf posted earlier for something to be considered 'sexual harssment'.

Just looking at someone in the 'wrong way' will qualify.

It would appear, at least to me, that even looking at someone in a way they
*think* is 'wrong' would qualify.

The unfortunate part about the term in my opinion is that interpretation
and perception is everything, actual actions are nothing.  [I should
mention that part of the interpreation of Sexual Harassment that makes it
even more objectionable is the 'good intentions are irrelevant' argument,
also mentioned in this article.] When combined with the original vague
definition, this causes lots of problems.  If you throw in cultural
differences in perception as well, you get a real mess.   Which is about what
we have (IMO).
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: 6069870@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Hating Men with Full Force
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 19:57:10 GMT

very good... you get an "a"


------------------------- Original Article -------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: shore@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Melinda Shore)
Subject: Re: Hating Men with Full Force
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 16:24:20 GMT

In article <92232.29425.6069870@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM> 6069870@LMSC5.IS.LMS
>this sounds like a dame who never gets any.

Funny, that sounds exactly like the kind of thing a guy who
never gets any would say.  What, precisely, were you intending
to contribute to the conversation with that remark?

I am not surprised that there are women who hate men.  What
surprises me is *which* women hate men.  No, it isn't the
radical feminists or the lesbian separatists who make sweeping
and general anti-male statements, it's the heterosexual housewives
and the rather ordinary, run-of-the mill women who engage in
outrageous male-bashing.  And it's the men who behave in the
most disgustingly sexist manner who are confused and angered by
it.  Ironic, huh?
--
       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu
From: Eric_S_Klien@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Electronic Matchmaker
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 01:43:58 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: world

Women, I am about to launch a free electronic matching service on 
Usenet.  Thanks to the imbalance of men to women on Usenet, more guys 
than gals have expressed an interest so far.  If you would like to 
see the fifth draft of my questionnaire so we can alter it to also 
fit women's needs as well as men's, either send me mail or look at 
the copy I posted in alt.personals.  
 
This service is serious and I already have 310 men and 174 women 
signed up so far.  The site of the service has already been selected 
and programming is nearly completed.  
 
                                                          Eric Klien
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: schock@flip.cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Craig-Richard Schock)
Subject: Re: Biological Sex Differences?
Reply-To: schock@flip.cpsc.ucalgary.ca
Organization: University of Calgary Computer Science
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 17:22:02 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.153039.9256@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)  
writes:
> 	But we are talking about redressing inequities, and it is
> certainly legitimate to consider whether the means of doing so involve
> creating reverse injustices.

This is quite a dangerous statement to make.  

"reverse injustices" are injustices.  If you claim that some injustices are OK  
while others are not, you are simply being hypocritical.

IMO, anyone who is discriminatory because he/she is "redressing inequities" is  
no different to those people who discriminate simply to support unequal power  
structures. 

> But a lot of women are simply trying to catch up :-)

Yes, absolutely.  This is very unfortunate, but we have a long way to go to  
achieve an egalitarian society.  Supporting unegalitarian-like practices can  
only put us back to where we were;  they cannot advance us to where we would  
like to be.

Craig
From: mmord@doc.bmd.trw.com
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: ******PMS******question 
Date: 13 Aug 92 08:59:05 MST

In article <1992Aug11.203032.14079@nb.rockwell.com>, guthrie@nb.rockwell.com (Karen Guthrie) writes:
> 
> 
> 
> I suffer from pretty bad PMS.  When I went to my Gynecologist
> he just said to eat right and gave me some trancs.  Stress makes 
> it much worse and it is very cyclic.  Has anyone else had a better
> answer?  I am sorry if this is a FAQ.  I just need to know that I
> am not crazy and what if anything I can do.  I have only minor
> versions of the physical symptoms but the emotional is like Dr.
> Jekal and Mr. Hyde.  If you are male and not involved with a PMS
> sufferer save it.  It is hell week and I am in no mood for rude
> or "funny" comments.  To those of you who might be able to help
> I will be eternally grateful and so will my family.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Karen
> 

My girlfriend and I contended with a PMS situation that was pretty bad.
Yeah, yeah, there were tranquilizers etc but when we had just about given
up hope of help this way (I was just going to be gone during her periods) we
stumbled upon some absolutely astonishingly effective advice. It is:

1.  Avoid Caffeine completely

2.  Take vitamin B-6 suplements every day

3.  and yes have a good diet

1 & 2 above were the big changes for her....she tried  it and it worked
profoundly well.  Of course please chat with a Dr. before gorging down
B-6 but I think its relatively tame in moderate daily doses, and is 
readily available.  It worked for us very well when there was no
longer any hope.

Bret Webster

Anybody else tried this?
From: Laurie Mann
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Opinions wanted on Faludi's _Backlash_
Date: 20 Aug 92 19:36:27 GMT
Reply-To: lmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com

elizabeth writes
>I just finished reading Susan Faludi's BACKLASH and would like to know
>what you all thought of it...does it make sense or is it a bunch of crap?
>I'm not going to post my own opinions yet so as not to bias the replys
>I get :).

Mostly pretty good, accurate about 90% of the time, and a little
strident in places.  But, she was mad as hell, and she wasn't going
to take it any more.  And I don't blame her one bit.


*  NeXT: lmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com * GEnie:  Laurie.Mann  *
**** Vote to can George and Dan! **  Vote for CHANGE in 1992!****
**********    Member of the cultural elite and PROUD!  **********
Xref: sparky soc.women:15153 talk.rape:2096