HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu (Amy Young Leith)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Men & Women, "Males & Females"
Date: 20 Dec 92 18:27:50 GMT
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington

In article <1992Dec20.110910.24188@hemlock.cray.com> acp@cray.com (Anthony Peterson) writes:

>	Wouldn't the term males include male dogs, skinks, goldfish,
>
>	etc as well as male humans?

Perhaps I have too much faith in the usenet readership, but when I am
making a post, I assume that the reader has the intelligence enough to
figure out whether I'm taling about a human, dog, skink, or goldfish. 

amy

-- 
alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu for personal mail
			    All business mail to alyoung@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Dislcaimer:I only speak for myself.  Anyone who thinks differently is a fool.
			(This means NOT my employer!!)
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: why
X-To: XENON@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Followups-To: alt.conspiracy,/dev/null
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 05:32:00 GMT

xenon@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu writes...
XE> In article <92Nov23.191208.20961@acs.ucalgary.ca>, gembura@acs.ucalgary.ca (
XE> y Robert Gembura) writes:
XE> > How come that 99.9% of articles in this group are written by men?
XE> > Just curious.
XE> > Jerry

XE> It's a conspiracy, Jerry.  The minions of Patriarchy have terrorized most of
XE> the female net population into silence, and are currently at work on a worm
XE> seek and destroy female postings everywhere.  Soon only male voices will be
XE> heard throughout the land, and the female will be cast out into everlasting
XE> darkness!

SHHHHH!!!!!

Don't TELL them!  GOiD!!

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Did you know that clones never use mirrors?
From: lmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Laurie Mann)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Date: 18 Dec 1992 21:37:49 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
Reply-To: lmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: ansible.pubs.stratus.com

Diane writes
>dgross@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu (Dave Gross) writes:
>>"We men" are surrounded by violence from our circumcision...
>Are you seeing a trend here? If there's a problem with violence, it looks
>suspiciously like a male-problem that women are supposed to just put up with,
>because we may not make up the largest segment of victims....You seem to be
>angry that women would dare to usurp whatever fear you claim to be living
>with. Deal with it...

Diane, this is a SUPERB answer.  I came close to flaming this person,
but chose not to.  You have cogently responded to him. Thanks.

*  In Germany they first came for the Communists, and I didn't speak *
*  because I wasn't a Communist.  Then they came for the Jews, and I *
*  didn't speak because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade *
* unionists, and I didn't speak because I wasn't a trade unionist... *
*Then they came for me--and by that time no one was left to speak up.*
*  Rev. Martin Niemoeller     [Why to March on Washington in April]  *
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: mhnatsis@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Martha Helen Natsis)
Subject: Re: Cosmo covers
Originator: news@nimaster
Keywords: womens bodies
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 18:35:56 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.220444.28188@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> krw@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (keith.r.smith) writes:
>One evening while I was in a checkout line at a local supermarket, I took
>note of a "Cosmopolitan" magazine cover.  I had seen Cosmo covers before;
note:(some stuff deleted here)
>The really strange thing, to my eyes, was that this skinny body of hers
>was equipped with the "cleavage of life".  I wondered to myself, how a
>person could possibly get to look like this w/o surgery or borderline
>anorexia. 
>What up wit dat!
>
>Keith R
1) They probably are starving themselves
2) The cleavage is accomplished by taping themselves up (most of those
outfits would not be able to conceal a bra)

Elena
(mhnatsis@phoenix.princeton.edu)

I wish I had a 
.sig*************************************************
* Currently applying for a patent for my brain, and all constructions
thereof
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: A Child Support Suggestion.
From: jem@latcs1.lat.oz.au (Joan McGalliard)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 01:59:03 GMT
Organization: Australian Computing and Communications Institute


Once a child is born, what would you think of these options?

Either:

1) If the mother wants the child and the father doesn't, she
keeps the child and he pays support based on both their
incomes.

Or:

2) If the father wants the child and the mother doesn't, he
keeps the child and she pays support based on both their
incomes.

Or:

3) If neither parent wants custody, the child is given up
for adoption.  The adoptive parents are selected on (amongst
other criteria) their ability to support a child, and thus
the natural parents can give up both their rights and
responsibilities.

Or:

4) If the child is not adopted (for instance this happens
with handicapped children) and the child is thus placed in
foster care or in an institution then both parents are
liable to pay support based on income.

Or:

5) If both parents want custody, it would be hoped that a
mutual agreement could be reached.  If this is not possible,
some independent arbiter should be able to decide who gets
custody, they should share guardianship, and support should
be decide as before.

Sorry if this is obvious, or has been discussed before, but
it hasn't been mentioned in any article that I have read.
The only point that worries me is 2), not because it is
unfair, but it does put a significant financial inducement
on a women to have an abortion.  It also doesn't deal with 
the problem of women who conceal the father's identity,
but I don't think you can do anything about that until such
time as everyone's DNA is recorded in a huge database - which
I hope never happens.

joan
-- 
 "It's better to live on your     Joan McGalliard, 
  feet than to die on your        Australian Computing and 
  knees."                         Communications Institute.
                                  (borrowing latcs1)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,alt.women,soc.men
From: lib@cbnews.cb.att.com (Lib)
Subject: Re: How to Protect Women
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 14:10:09 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.235029.14126@tellab5.tellabs.com> chrz@tellabs.com (Peter Chrzanowski) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.182526.17993@leland.Stanford.EDU>, dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dave Eisen) writes:
>> But do we really want to set up public policy so that
>> we allow killing if the killer for whatever reasons, psychological
>> or otherwise, finds his situation difficult? 
>
>Why not?  After all, we've declared alcoholism and drug abuse to be
>diseases, surely you can't hold a person responsible for being sick? 
   
Where I live drunk drivers are routinely jailed if they hurt someone.
  
>Guess where most of Aid to the Disabled welfare goes?  Wanna get welfare
>but can't have kids?  Smoke some crack! 
  
Can't say I've ever heard that one before.

>Did you commit a crime while under the influence?  Well, gee, surely we
>should understand that you were helpless before the power of your addiction?
  
A local teenager just got life for murdering his girlfriend while under
the influence of steroids.
  
>Don't laugh, a guy tried an "insanity" defense after being caught embezzling
>$100,000. or so.  Said he had this disease, an addiction to gambling, so
>he just couldn't help himself.  He was convicted, but perhaps next time ...
  
Perhaps, perhaps not. Local jures don't seem to buy that stuff.
  
>Been reading New Hampshire license plates?  Hey, you can't just hold adults
>responsible for their actions.   And if you did, what would we do with

Couple of years ago a New Hampshire man was fined for relettering his
plate to read Live And Let Live. Defacing state property (his license plate).

Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism,talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: macl6441@mach1.wlu.ca (macleod heather)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Entry level salaries (was: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Date: 15 Dec 92 20:34:29 GMT
Organization: Wilfrid Laurier University

In article <1992Dec6.223912.28141@serval.net.wsu.edu> joerd@wsuaix.csc.wsu.edu (Wayne Joerding - Economics;S20000) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov24.175617.1801@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>>>In article <By8Ato.3so@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>>
>>>Many parents do exactly this. One friend of mine is making a heroic
>>>effort to teach his ten-year-old daughter chemistry and physics; she,
>>>however, couldn't care less. Her dad, when he was young, was exactly
>>>like Mr. Nelson, took to these "science" things very naturally. Yet, in
>>>spite of not merely the opportunity, but much encouragement, the
>>>daughter simply isn't interested. I have tried to get my daughter
>>>interested in computers and such, but she's much less interested in
>>>this than my son is. And this scenario is repeated,
>>>over and over again.
>>>
>>>Besides, even many girls who aren't "given erector sets" or whatever
>>>have brothers or cousins who have these things, and are not excluded
>>>from using them, should they want to. Most will play with them a little,
>>>a few will play with them a lot, but in general girls simply care less
>>>about this stuff.
>>>
>
>I think one of the most educational parts of being a parent was finding out
>my daughter did seem to have preferences unlike a boys.  Dispite my prior
>ideas it just turned out that my daughter would rather play with dolls than
>erector set.  She had both by the truck load.
>
>Finally, in desperation I found it better to work with my daughter's 
>interest rather than against them.  I found that I could interest her 
>in designing a house for her dolls.  Or building obstacle courses for
>her Barbie to negotiate.  Or putting Barbie on her radio controlled car.
>These type of activities were much more interesting for my daughter than
>disigning space ships for alien invaders or building tanks, like I did
>as a child.  And, I hope that the activities of building house
>and such gave her the same type of experience at spacial visualization, 
>cause and effect, and other skill important for science and engineering.
>
>Did it work?  My daughter is 15 years old now, in her first year of high
>school.  So it's too early yet.  But so far so good.
>
>Wayne
> 
>
>
> 

I think that it's very possible that males and females are born with
different (sex-related) characteristics.  In some of my research with young
children, even at the age of 6, they knew what toys they liked, and they
tended to be the ones appropriate for their sex.  But, I think that what
Wayne is doing is excellent.  Give the child - of either sex - the chance to
play with whatever they want.  If a boy likes dolls better, then let him
have them!@

Heather MacLeod   macl6441@mach1.wlu.ca
Wilfrid Laurier University
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
From: tuttle@blurt.oswego.edu
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: cosmo covers--models too thin?
Date: 17 Dec 92 20:16:49 GMT
Organization: SUNY College at Oswego, Oswego, NY

Do you men out there truly think that those models are too thin?  I have
friends that say that all the time, but we women diet till we drop to look like
that!  Do you prefer a petite size 4 or a perfect size 10?  
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: "Amy Young Leith" <alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Cosmo covers
Keywords: womens bodies
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 11:03:42 -0500

In article <1992Dec15.220444.28188@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> krw@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (keith.r.smith) writes:
>One evening while I was in a checkout line at a local supermarket, I took
>note of a "Cosmopolitan" magazine cover.  I had seen Cosmo covers before;
>you really cannot _miss_ them, as there is always a young, well groomed
>woman on the cover with half of her cleavage hangin' out.  I took particular
>note this time, as this was during the height of the Elle McP controversy
>in this newsgroup, among others.  When I looked at her arms, shoulders,
>upper chest (that inch or two, just south of the collarbone), and hips,
>(you don't see anything south of the hips), I could not help but think that
>she could stand some serious "iron time" and/or a more nutritious diet. 
>The really strange thing, to my eyes, was that this skinny body of hers
>was equipped with the "cleavage of life".  I wondered to myself, how a
>person could possibly get to look like this w/o surgery or borderline
>anorexia.  When the next issue came out, there was a differrent model,
>a differrent outfit, but much the same figure on the cover.  They certainly
>did not look like any women that I had ever come across.  Mind you, in
>my time I have met several women whom I thought to be exceptionally fit
>and shapely, compared to these "Cosmo" women, who by comparison, looked
>half-starved, but with full bosoms.

Seeing as how I appreciate the beauty of women as well as men *grin* I
normally don't find Cosmo covers appealing.  Oh, sometimes I think the
women look nice, but they are so *fake*.  It's like seeing a Ferrari
and thinking it looks strange because you aren't used to seeing that.
I know one person who, in real life here in Bloomington, looks like a
cover model.  She looks sick.  Her arms are thin toothpicks, her ribs
show like she's malnourished, and she is not very healthy at all,
taken into consideration her diet, her physical stamina, etc. 

I am not attracted to women in a physical way who look like that.
There's a big difference between "real life in shape" and having the
stature of a model.  I much prefer the former.  Obviously some people
continue to prefer the unrealistic latter. 

amy

-- 
alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu for personal mail
			    All business mail to alyoung@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Dislcaimer:I only speak for myself.  Anyone who thinks differently is a fool.
			(This means NOT my employer!!)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism,talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: (Nasty) E-Mail
From: emiddlec@mora.gac.edu (Eric Middlecamp)
Date: 15 Dec 92 16:41:31 -0600

In article <1992Dec14.111329.3814@mtu.edu>  writes:
>In article <1992Dec10.154145.29960@wam.umd.edu>, sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell) writes:
>>athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:
>>>Perhaps the women should start to post the e-mail addresses of the folks
[munch]

>    From what I understand, e-mail is copyrighted by the author.
>Reposting the message without their permission could call for a
>lawsuit.  A publicly humiliated person could resort to such measures.
>
>    Does anybody know one way or the other for sure?

I don't, but here's my $0.02 worth..

For one thing, they were asking about posting the *addresses* of the senders.
(I agree that this would lead to having to post the messages, because the
senders won't leave a name if they are smart..)

If that is the way e-mail is handled legally, it will have to evolve; it 
practically encourages harassment.
Xref: sparky soc.women:21564 soc.men:21299 alt.feminism:6171 talk.abortion:52206 alt.abortion.inequity:5971
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Men Posting in soc.women...
X-To: LAURIE MANN
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 03:55:00 GMT

lmann@jjmhome.UUCP (Laurie Mann) writes...

LM> The constant X-posting to soc.women.

LM> The constant comments by men in soc.women.
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

LM> The constant silly arguments about toilet seat lids and toilet
LM> paper.  Configure it yourself!


I realise why you might think that talking about toilet seats is silly, but in
the same breath, you seem to imply that you have a problem with men posting to
soc.women.

I have no intention of leaving soc.women, nor do I ask that *you* should stop
posting, or not post, to soc.men, merely because you are female.

Other men will no doubt agree with me.  We have no intention of leaving, and
have no intention of trying to force women from soc.men.  Just because there
are one or two rabble rousers saying that women shouldn't post to soc.men,
does *not* mean that the majority of posters to soc.men share this belief.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Still assimilating... nothing outlasts a Borg...
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism,talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: just passing through on way to alt.real-men.grunt.thud ....
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: NAS Program, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 16:38:36 GMT

Followups set to Talk.abortion

In article <1992Dec17.211922.15114@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu> conditt@tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (Paul Conditt) writes:
 
>[Yet another Rant from someone who has no clue about responsibility
> telling others how to live according to his bizarre idea about
> responsibility deleted]
 
>Believe it or not, we *all* have the right to choose what happens to our
>bodies.  The thing that we don't seem to be willing to accept is *when*
>that choice occurs.  The choice occurs *before* you have sex, not during
>and certainly not after.  If a woman wants to preserve her right to 
>choose to not have a baby, then she shouldn't engage in activities where
>there's a possibility of that happening.  Same thing for men.  What is it
>that makes it so hard to accept this responsibility?
 
I just love it when pro-lifers spout off about responsibility as if
it is something they understand.  Paul, if you want to do the
responsible thing regarding abortion you should drop your legislative
agenda now.  That is irresponsible behavior.  If you want to save
fetus, it is very irresponsible to force someone to care for something
that you treasure at great personal sacrifice for them and no personal
sacrifice for yourself.  The responsible thing for you to do is to
take personal responsibility to protect fetus's.  Help women who are
dealing with un-wanted pregnancy.  There is a possibility that just
a place to stay for a while may convince a woman to continue a
pregnancy.  Take them into your house.  Maybe another woman may
need a few thousand dollars to survive the time she can't work.
Give her the money.  Another woman might just need something like
the parental leave bill passed to convince her to carry to term.
Right your congress critter to try and over-ride the religious
rights stooge's veto.  These are just a few of the personal
sacrifices you yourself can make to eliminate the need for
abortion.  These would be responsible actions as opposed to
the irresponsible method of forcing others against their will
to care for fetus's.  Why don't you try and be responsible.

>Paul Conditt
 
Dan King
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,alt.women,soc.men
From: michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael)
Subject: Re: How to Protect Women
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:00:51 GMT

In <1992Dec16.235029.14126@tellab5.tellabs.com> chrz@tellabs.com (Peter Chrzanowski) writes:

>Did you commit a crime while under the influence?  Well, gee, surely we
>should understand that you were helpless before the power of your addiction?

I feel that I must clarify that there is a difference between someone
who is negligent, drinks, and commits a crime and someone who is
addicted and can't help themself, drink, and then commit a crime.

In the first case, the negligence led to the crime.  The person chose
to be negligent in a case where they should have known better.

In the second case, the alcaholism could have started in many ways.  But
we can be reasonably sure that the person didn't WANT to become an
alcaholic, that the person drank because of their disease, and that the
crime was committed because of the influence of the alcahol.  This does
not mean the crime should be ignored.  It means that the alcoholic has
demonstrated to the public that he/she is out of control and then the
public (in my opinion) has not only the right, but the responsibility
to help the alcaholic overcome his disease.

>Don't laugh, a guy tried an "insanity" defense after being caught embezzling
>$100,000. or so.  Said he had this disease, an addiction to gambling, so
>he just couldn't help himself.  He was convicted, but perhaps next time ...

There is such a disease.  Alcoholism, drugs, gambling, overeating can all
become addictions and can ruin people's lives.  Overcoming these
problems is NOT easy.  I doubt any of these people want to ruin their
lives.  The difference is that we understand these diseases and can help
people overcome them if they want to make the effort.

This is not to say that everyone who gambles, drinks, uses drugs, or
overeats has an addiction.  But more do than you would think.

>> I for one don't want to live in such a society.

>Been reading New Hampshire license plates?  Hey, you can't just hold adults
>responsible for their actions.   And if you did, what would we do with
>all those unemployed psychiatric social workers?

Well, when someone is negligent, they should be held responsible.  When
they can't help themselves, we should help them.  Punishing someone who
can't help themselves is just plain mean.

    Michael Stanley (michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu)
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: krw@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (keith.r.smith)
Subject: Cosmo covers
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 22:04:44 GMT
Keywords: womens bodies

I am posting this one again, as I had included too many newsgroups
on the first pass ........... Keith R
========================================================================

One evening while I was in a checkout line at a local supermarket, I took
note of a "Cosmopolitan" magazine cover.  I had seen Cosmo covers before;
you really cannot _miss_ them, as there is always a young, well groomed
woman on the cover with half of her cleavage hangin' out.  I took particular
note this time, as this was during the height of the Elle McP controversy
in this newsgroup, among others.  When I looked at her arms, shoulders,
upper chest (that inch or two, just south of the collarbone), and hips,
(you don't see anything south of the hips), I could not help but think that
she could stand some serious "iron time" and/or a more nutritious diet. 
The really strange thing, to my eyes, was that this skinny body of hers
was equipped with the "cleavage of life".  I wondered to myself, how a
person could possibly get to look like this w/o surgery or borderline
anorexia.  When the next issue came out, there was a differrent model,
a differrent outfit, but much the same figure on the cover.  They certainly
did not look like any women that I had ever come across.  Mind you, in
my time I have met several women whom I thought to be exceptionally fit
and shapely, compared to these "Cosmo" women, who by comparison, looked
half-starved, but with full bosoms.

What up wit dat!

Keith R