HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Father Notification Reconsidered
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 10:27:36 GMT

In article <Bu6tFA.K57@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>In article <1992Sep6.180116.20083@morrow.stanford.edu> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>>And if the man is notified and the woman wants an abortion but he
>>doesn't want her to have one, what then?  Can he force her to remain
>>pregnant because he wants a child?
>
>No.

I agree.

>>Plead for justice?  How so?  "Please, your honor, force my wife/
>>girlfriend to carry this fetus to term.  I know she doesn't want to be
>>pregnant, but I want a child and I have to use her body for that."
>
>How about,
>"Please, your Honor, grant me an immediate divorce from my wife,
>who I have now discovered is not (was never) interested in having 
>or enlarging a family with me.  Don't make me wait two years or
>pay spousal support, since she broke her word."

How did she break her word?  Are there explicit (or even implicit)
details in marriage vows that suggest that a woman agrees to bear
children at any time when she agrees to marry?  (I'm sitting here
thinking of all the weddings I've been to and I've yet to hear any
vows about agreeing to have children.)

If the wife says that she wants children, but not while she's in law
school (or whatever), is that grounds for a divorce (by your
criteria)? 

>No, not all marriages have the direct intent of having unbounded
>families, but reproduction is commonly a central issue, and it 
>generates rights, duties, and liabilities for husbands and wives.

Does a husband have the right to force his wife to bear an unwanted
(by her at least) child or divorce her?  Is there a limit to this,
let's say they have 6 children and she has an abortion then, should he
divorce her for that?

>Mind you, I think the +best+ solution would be to provide flexible
>and enforceable marriage contracts, where (eg.) a wife could agree 
>to notify her husband or lose marital rights X,Y,Z (eg. alimony).
>If she didn't want to agree, she could find someone else or avoid
>marriage.  Same for him.

I agree.  Men who want wives as brood mares and women who want
husbands as walking wallets should be as upfront about that as
possible.  

Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism
From: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Subject: Re: Feminists ignore Cosmetics?
Originator: hillyard@tiger.msc.cornell.edu
Reply-To: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell-Materials-Science-Center
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 05:01:37 GMT

From article <1992Sep7.025010.27107@lugb.latrobe.edu.au>, by 9125113g@lux.latrobe.edu.au (Mitch Davis):
[...]
> 
> Let's say you have a factory.  Half your machines are running at 90%
> efficiency, and the other half at 10% efficiency.  Now, if you want to
> make your factory better, there is very little point in trying to wring
> the last 10% out of the first set of machines - with the same amount of
> effort, you could make the second set of machines 90% efficient as well.
> 
> And so it is with us.  I percieve women as the "great untapped
> resource".  If only our society would listen to what women had to
> offer, and be prepared to accept what women have to give, our society
> would be fantastically richer.

This is not a good analogy because in a typical society men and women 
have had their own separate spheres, and both work hard within them.

Relating it to the factory.  You have one set of machines working
at 90% efficiency on job A, and a second working at 90% on job B.
Today's society is basically trying to get the job B machines to 
do job A, and hoping that job B will end up being done also.

(The ideal, of course, being to use those machines that do A the best
in job A, and B the best in job B, regardless of type.)

SEH
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
From: bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician)
Subject: Re: Missed Opportunity....
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 92 10:01:18 GMT
Organization: Society for the Preservation of E. coli

In article <1992Sep8.235211.18312@col.hp.com> mikel@col.hp.com (Mike Lopke) writes:
>bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
>> Again, this isn't sarcasm or derision.  It's merely recognising the
>> obvious.

>Given the situation of your friends miscarriage, how do you think
>they would have responded to the following?  

[comment deleted for brevity]

Depends upon when it was said.

If said right after the miscarriage, it would be rather cruel.

If, however, the person keeps harping on the fact that he had a
miscarriage, then it might be appropriate to inform said person that
life goes on...that bad things happen to good people...that we don't
live in a _Nick at Nite_ world where everything turns out for the
best...no matter how much we would like them to be.

And personally, I wouldn't mind living in a _Nick at Nite_ world...or
at least certain parts of it...everyone has a job...everyone has a love
interest and is comfortable with his sexuality (granted, everybody was
het, but everybody was pretty much happy with how they were and how
they lived their lives...I'd *kill* to live in a world where everyone
was pretty much happy with how they were and how they lived their
lives instead of the continual self-blame we get now.)

-- 
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: sam@hpsad.sad.hp.com (Vicky Hansen)
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 13:40:27 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: Biological Sex Differences? ("Women only" excusable ?)
Organization: HP Signal Analysis Division - Rohnert Park, CA
Newsgroups: soc.women

In soc.women, <RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
>>From: sam@hpsad.sad.hp.com (Vicky Hansen)
>>As for B, I had to take 1 math instructor (engineering department) to higher
>>authorities because the grades on my exams were lower than the grades on a
>>similar exam from a male student.  His 'explanation' was that women did not
>>belong in this department.  The college took care of that one case since it
>>was so flagrant but students are at the mercy of the teacher.

>It is idiots like this instructor who allow charges that all universities are
>sexist (not that Vicky Hansen means to say that) to become plausible.  In
>some 25 years of being involved in hiring decisions, I have heard only
>one remark that could be thought of as sexist.  When a woman was being
>interviewed for an assistant profesorship in Statistics, one of the senior
>professors remarked that if she turned out not to be suitable for
>tenure it would be impossible to deny it to her anyway because being a
>woman she could sue.  This the ONLY case I have encountered in 25 years.

The difference may be timing.  The instructor I had trouble with was nearing
retirement age and the incident was 24 years ago.

Xref: sparky soc.women:16245 alt.feminism:714
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Feminists ignore Cosmetics?
Date: 7 Sep 92 12:01:45 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

9125113g@lux.latrobe.edu.au (Mitch Davis):
| > Let's say you have a factory.  Half your machines are running at 90%
| > efficiency ....

hillyard@msc.cornell.edu writes:
| This is not a good analogy because in a typical society men and women 
| have had their own separate spheres, and both work hard within them.
| 
| Relating it to the factory.  You have one set of machines working
| at 90% efficiency on job A, and a second working at 90% on job B.
| Today's society is basically trying to get the job B machines to 
| do job A, and hoping that job B will end up being done also.

Let's say you have a factory where you produce analogies, such
as likening people to machines and human society to factories.
The analogies consistently break down.  It's time to design
a new kind of analogy, or go into a different line of business.
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
From: rspence@mpd.tandem.com (Russell Spence)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: women in engineering
Summary: what happened to all the women nerds?
Date: 10 Sep 92 00:23:22 GMT
Organization: Tandem Computers (MPD) Austin, TX

>In article <1992Sep7.154918.11940@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>> When I got into the computer software field, 27 years ago,
>> I was just about off the street.  They called us "programmers"
>> and there was no talk of engineering.  Degrees were not
>> particularly liked, because people without them seemed to be

	I've been thinking about this women vs. men in engineering for a
	while and have a question for you folks out there.  I've been
	in the UNIX programming market for about 8 years now.  I have a CS
	degree and almost everyone I have ever worked with has had a CS
	degree.  Also, every group I have ever worked in has been almost
	exclusively male.  For a while now I've been trying to observe the
	people I work with and have been trying to come up with a "personality
	profile" or some indication of any shared trait that might define
	a "programmer type" (or at least a "UNIX programmer type", I don't know
	about other types of programmers).  I've come up with a few things
	that might be interesting.

	Almost all programmers I know have bad eyesight.  Many wear glasses,
	some wear contact lenses.  There is a much higher proportion of
	left-handed programmers than in the general population.  Most groups
	I've worked with have >50% left-handedness.  When I was a student
	assistant at school 10 out of 11 of us where left-handed, whereas the
	general population is about 10% left-handed.  Most programmers I know
	were not good athletes at school, particularly at the high school
	level.  Some had asthma or other health problems, some were "late
	bloomers" and didn't really get their growth spurt until later,
	sometimes in the late twenties.

	I usually contrast this "profile" with marketing and sales groups
	I have come in contact with.  These people seem to be all
	right-handers.  To have good eyesight.  And to have a good
	representation of highschool football players among them.  My own
	theory is that guys become programmers or "engineering types"
	during highschool or early college and do so because they are 
	compensating for the lack of other talents that seem important at
	the time.  Often I've noticed that these people sometimes grow out of
	their "handicaps" but continue to be "engineering types" anyway.

	But, I have two questions for you folks on the net.  Has anyone else
	noticed this type of "programmer personality profile"? (and please
	no flames, I realize that this is a generalization and that there
	are many exceptions).  And, how would this affect women going into
	programming, if at all?  (Or, maybe another way to phrase this question,
	what happened all the female nerds?  Are there women nerds, or did
	they go into some other field?).

-- 
Russell Spence                                               Austin, Texas

"Foot-impelled bi-directional verticle transport asset"
				- staircase, as defined by the U.S. Army
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Biological Sex Differences? ("Women only" excusable ?)
From: <RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Saturday, 12 Sep 1992 07:16:37 EDT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center


-From: sam@hpsad.sad.hp.com (Vicky Hansen)
-Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 16:23:41 GMT
-
-As for B, I had to take 1 math instructor (engineering department) to higher
-authorities because the grades on my exams were lower than the grades on a
-similar exam from a male student.  His 'explanation' was that women did not
-belong in this department.  The college took care of that one case since it
-was so flagrant but students are at the mercy of the teacher.

It is idiots like this instructor who allow charges that all universities are
sexist (not that Vicky Hansen means to say that) to become plausible.  In
some 25 years of being involved in hiring decisions, I have heard only
one remark that could be thought of as sexist.  When a woman was being
interviewed for an assistant profesorship in Statistics, one of the senior
professors remarked that if she turned out not to be suitable for
tenure it would be impossible to deny it to her anyway because being a
woman she could sue.  This the ONLY case I have encountered in 25 years.

Rohit Parikh
From: Barbara.Tucker@f29.n130.z1.fidonet.org (Barbara Tucker)
Sender: FredGate@ocitor.fidonet
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: EuStress Has Trouble With Words
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1992 09:14:00

Hello Hillel!

08 Sep 92, Hillel Gazit writes to All:

 HG> @Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)
 HG> Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
 HG> @Message-ID: <715922557@lear.cs.duke.edu>

 HG> In article <1992Sep8.002927.18462@ultb.isc.rit.edu>
 HG> kls4344@ritvax.isc.rit.edu writes:

 >> But what if *no one*, both biological parents included,
 >> want to support this child?

 HG> Have you ever heard about adoption?

        Which has a whole set of problems of its own.

 HG> Do you know what the length of adoption waiting lists for
 HG> newborn babies?

        ONLY for WHITE, PERFECT infants.  No birthmarks, no dark skin of any type, no birth defects, however minor, and god help them if they needed ANY type of medical care after birth. (no fevers, no colds, no time under bilirubin lights)

        It took a little over a year to find a home for a white baby with a port wine stain the size of a quarter.  Darked skinned children are almost immpossible to place.  It's almost impossible to find a home for a black baby. It's very hard to find anyone willing to take a chance with a child that required medical care shortly after birth. Any child with a problem that will require medical care on a ongoing basis isn't even considered.

        The foster care system for infants is so overloaded that the babies are stacking up in the public hospital nurseries.  Remember the stories about "boarder babies"?  Things haven't improved, they've just changed the location of the problem.  Now a single foster mother can take care of up to EIGHT infants.  And the babies are still stacking up at JPS and the other public hospitals.

        There are more than a hundred free children in this COUNTY alone, most have been available for adoption since birth.  Three times as many would be made available IF homes were available.

        Most young hispanic and black women know that the chances of anyone adopting their child is non-existant, so they will not sign the adoption papers.  The child will remain in foster care for several years while the mother gets her life together, and is able to return for her child.  Many have commented that if they were sure that their babies would be adopted, that they would give them up, but that their baby growing up being bounced from house to house in foster care is not what they (the mothers)



 want.

 HG> (I suggest "choice for men" long before the baby will be born so
 HG> the woman will have the choice of abortion or the time to look
 HG> for the kind of adoption (e.g. open) she might want.)

        And if something goes wrong, and the baby is not the white perfect baby that adoptive parents want?  Say he has a very mild CP, just enough that his speech will always be slightly slurred?  It's enough to put him into the unadoptable catagory.  What then?


 * Origin:  Mail Drop  (1:130/29)
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: Hating Men with Full Force
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1992Aug21.183954.7830@ultb.isc.rit.edu> <21986@galaxy.ucr.edu>
	<21987@galaxy.ucr.edu> <99Q702Uo200=01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 23:29:08 GMT

<In article <99Q702Uo200=01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> dsm40@mcode.amdahl.com (Diana St.Martin) writes:
<In article <21987@galaxy.ucr.edu>, starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu (aaron greenwood) writes:
<>
<> Correct?  You may think that most women hate or dislike men.  You are
<> wrong, very very wrong.
<>

<Just for the sake of accuracy, could you provide some support for
<this statement please.

	An interesting challenge. Let's attempt proof by
	contradiction.
	
	Assume that most (at least 51%) women hate/dislike men. 
	The majority of women (female humans over 18 years of
	age) are married to men. If they truly hated/disliked
	men, why would they marry them? Marriage is hardly
	a requisite to life.

	A weak attempt at a proof, to be sure.

	Would anyone attempt to prove the opposite? Would
	anyone care to provide some support for the
	assertion: "Most women hate or dislike men"?

<   > The words that come to mind are terrorist and fanatic.  I think they fit
<   > Ms. Shah's character very well indeed. And like a terroist she would like
<   > to vilify, fragment, and distroy for no reason but an unhealthy emotion.
<   > Her statements are the product of a sever personallity disorder.  They
<   > are without merit.
<   > 

<   Hmmm.  Maybe yes and maybe no.  It would be interesting to know how she arrived at her conclusion.  It might be completely valid *for her*.<

	Advocating murder is never "valid" IMHO.
	Could you list some men whom you feel "deserve" to
	be killed and mutilated, as Shah asserts?


<   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.

	Advocating murder is not, IMHO, the sign of good character.
	Do you feel that it is?

<   The statements to which you are objecting may actually have a place in the scheme of things.  Who knows, they might actually make some people wake up and think for themselves (we need much more of this).  They certainly appear to have grabbed your attention.

	I see. Advocating murder is merely a means to get people's
	attention. Thank you for that interesting observation.

	P.S. Please try using the carriage-return/line feed
	feature, it makes your posts much easier to read.

Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.sex.wizards
From: loosemore-sandra@CS.YALE.EDU (Sandra Loosemore)
Subject: Re: How to relieve menstural cramp
Organization: staff hacker @ Yale Haskell project
	<1992Sep14.192411@IASTATE.EDU> <gthomas.716532765@unixg.ubc.ca>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:49:34 GMT

My $.02 worth: for myself, I've found that the #1 cause of killer
cramp attacks is eating salty food.  I try to watch what I eat around
that time of the month.

-Sandra
From: hwatters@armltd.uucp (Helen Watters)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Missed Opportunity....
Date: 10 Sep 92 16:37:14 GMT
Organization: Advanced RISC Machines Ltd

>If, however, the person keeps harping on the fact that he had a miscarriage, 
                                                        ^^
I didn't know men could get pregnant, but you learn something new every
day :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)

Ah! You were being grammatically correct. Grammar rule 21 of the English 
langauage says that man/his/he includes both genders, so I guess a man 
can get pregnant :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)

Sorry I just couldn't resist,

Helen
From: jengagne@next03cville.wam.umd.edu (Jenny Lynne Gagne)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Fun with probabilities
Keywords: 17%
Date: 11 Sep 92 21:40:43 GMT
Reply-To: Jurassic Park as movie
Organization: Workstations at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park

In article <1992Sep11.092542.1@mdcbbs.com>  writes:
> 
>   Last night I was one of several speakers at a local men's forum, and 
> another speaker made the statement that condoms break during use 17%
> of the time. This seems like a very high failure rate. Anyone have some
> accurate references please?

17%?!?!?!?!?  What brand are they talking about here?  Even after using  
three condoms a day for a year and a half, not one has broken...  Maybe  
they're just really violent?
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic)
Subject: Re: X > 0.0, x < 1.0, and sex
Organization: TFS
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 13:59:29 GMT

I liked that bit about "if not x == 1.0 then x == 0.0".
The answer is perception and technological progress.
Many people are still using monochrome monitors, and they only get to see
things - in black and amber. Why shouldn't thought follow perception?
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Father Notification Reconsidered
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 02:54:45 GMT

In article <1992Sep6.180116.20083@morrow.stanford.edu> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>In article <92249.084117RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET> <RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
>>         The problem here is, are  you willing to penalise ALL  men because
>>    some men are violent and irresponsible?  What the currently fashionable
>>    position seems to hold is  that since some men are  irresponsible, then
>>    no man has the RIGHT to know.   If the woman wishes, she can tell  him.
>>    However,  the  decision  whether  he  IS  entitled to know, is entirely
>>    hers. And if she is unreasonable about it, that it just his tough
>>    luck. 
[some text deleted for conciseness]
>
>The problem I see with spouse notification is analogous to parental
>notification.  
...
>And if the man is notified and the woman wants an abortion but he
>doesn't want her to have one, what then?  Can he force her to remain
>pregnant because he wants a child?

No.

>>    The point is that men do have rights and some men may react violently
>>    when these rights are invaded.  But that is not then a legitimate
>>    reason to DENY rights to men.  We do not want people to take the law
>>    into their own hands.  But that is all the more reason that there
>>    SHOULD be a law where they can plead for justice.  To deny justice is
>>    to sow the seeds of violence.
>
>Plead for justice?  How so?  "Please, your honor, force my wife/
>girlfriend to carry this fetus to term.  I know she doesn't want to be
>pregnant, but I want a child and I have to use her body for that."

How about,
"Please, your Honor, grant me an immediate divorce from my wife,
who I have now discovered is not (was never) interested in having 
or enlarging a family with me.  Don't make me wait two years or
pay spousal support, since she broke her word."

No, not all marriages have the direct intent of having unbounded
families, but reproduction is commonly a central issue, and it 
generates rights, duties, and liabilities for husbands and wives.

Mind you, I think the +best+ solution would be to provide flexible
and enforceable marriage contracts, where (eg.) a wife could agree 
to notify her husband or lose marital rights X,Y,Z (eg. alimony).
If she didn't want to agree, she could find someone else or avoid
marriage.  Same for him.

It should be pretty clear that marriage isn't strictly a romance thing,
when such a large percentage of marriages end up in court.  Why don't
we allow the participants to state their interests in marrying and
be bound by what they've agreed to -- as long as, like any other contract,
it is within certain bounds?

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Xref: sparky soc.women:16374 soc.men:16200