HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: schock@flip.cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Craig-Richard Schock)
Subject: Re: Exercise wear for the abundant of flesh
Reply-To: schock@flip.cpsc.ucalgary.ca
Organization: U. of Calgary Computer Science
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 16:14:31 GMT


I Found this rather amusing...

In <isB0NB1w165w@tsoft.sf-bay.org> bbs.mxheyeck@tsoft.sf-bay.org (Mike Heyeck)  
writes:
> I'm tired of being blamed, as a man, for women who make 
> themselves into "skinny, pseudo-adolescent, nubile sex-toys", or for the 
> [...] 

And, later on in his message he writes:
> Feminists and their ilk have [...] destroyed traditional familial 
> structure while replacing it with nothing.

It's interesting how Mike Heyeck gets upset when someone (and society, in  
general) blames him for something he hasn't done but then goes right on and  
blames someone else (feminism in this case) for something they haven't done.

Rather hypocritical, don't you think?

> Mike Heyeck (bbs.mxheyeck@tsoft.sf-bay.org)


Craig-Richard Schock
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: women's place in life
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 23:47:20 GMT

In article <1992Jul26.142146.1@engr> s_mesbah@engr:

probably didn't remember to log out of his terminal.
From: ejohnson@graph.. (Liz Johnson)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Hillary Clinton - Family Values?
Date: 21 Jul 92 17:13:33 GMT
Organization: Computer Science, Indiana University

In article <14g94kINN6am@gw.home.vix.com> shedevil@vix.com (Anne P.  
Mitchell JD) writes:
> In The American Spectator, August 1992, there is a discussion of
> Hillary Clinton's views on reform measures for children and the law.
> One of her major points is that she believes that children from the
> age of 12 on up should, when the interests of the parents and the
> child diverge, be able to take their parents to court and testify
> against them.  ...(stuff deleted)

> quote from Hillary Clinton's views:
> 	by parents.  Children should have a right to be permitted to
> 	decide their own future if they are competent."
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

From what I've read, the above phrase is key. Not all 12 year olds are  
competent. Unfortunately, I can't remember now how competency is  
demonstrated.  But the point of this approach is that 16 or 18 is an  
arbitrary bound.  Why not permit younger children who are mature enough to  
make their own decisions do so rather than placing some artificial limit  
on competency?

Liz Johnson
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Pro Choice Election S
X-To: TIM WEAVER
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 02:41:00 GMT

tweaver@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Tim Weaver) writes...
TW> How about writing news agencies and trying to get them to stop calling
TW> the pro-choice movement pro-abortion.  I don't know any pro-choice
TW> people who would recommend abortions, but the news constantly portrays
TW> them this way by calling them pro-abortion.

While you and I have also had our share of disagreements (and I haven't found
any agreements yet <-: ), I think that I agree with you on that, to a point,
namely that the terminology is emotionally and politically loaded.  Even so,
this sort of emotional loading tactic has *not* spared either side of this
debate (witness the posters who use the term "anti-choice").

I know that I use the term "pro-abortion" because it is not as inflammatory
as "pro-death" or "anti-life," but while the term *does* suggest a preference
towards "maximising the number of abortions," the opinion remains that it is
not *just* a matter of the woman's choice, at least in the eyes of people who ar
sitting on the fence, so to speak, ie., so "pro-choice" isn't an apt term
either.

At any rate, if you think that I am just being prejudicial towards your side,
I also don't like saying "pro-life," although I sometimes do (as I sometimes
say "pro-choice").

I prefer just saying "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion," just because these
are the only two terms that seem to represent the fact that both sides are
diametrically oppsed.  Even so, I am not so ignorant as to not realise that
both of these terms *do* have their limitations.  Indeed, in an ideological
war, *every* descriptive term has limitations which attempt to stack the deck
in favour of one's own side and against the other.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                    "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Heh: Generic term used for many reasons.
Xref: sparky soc.women:14348 soc.men:13907
From: cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re:  Exercise wear for the abundant of flesh
Date: 30 Jul 92 16:42:06 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <1992Jul27.015816.8864@deeptht.armory.com> rstevew@deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz) writes:

>I tend to doubt the politics or the
>self-awareness or the personal confidence, or the honesty of a woman
>who shaves her legs, or her arm-pits for that matter. I have been lied
>to more often by that kind than by those who don't shave. I believe
>that can be generalized to men as well in my experience.

Too true. Don't trust a man who shaves his legs.  Be very wary of a
man who shaves his face. Don't turn your back on a man wearing a wig.
And don't lend money to a man wearing a skirt.
-- 
Chris Malcolm    cam@uk.ac.ed.aifh          +44 (0)31 650 3085
Department of Artificial Intelligence,    Edinburgh University
5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK                DoD #205
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Separate but equal is
X-To: LJF
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 00:32:00 GMT

farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes...
LJ> In article <9665@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (Char Azn
LJ> ) writes:
LJ> >I'd say he's hurting. I could be mistaken, of course.

LJ> Of course, this wasn't posted in soc.women, but three other
LJ> newsgroups.  The stuff I saw in here was woman-bashing and
LJ> feminist-bashing.

That is your opinion only.  One person's legitimate complaint is another
person's woman bashing and/or "feminist bashing".

I hear the complain that I am "woman bashing" *all* the time, while others
compliment me for daring to break men's silence on a lot of issues, abortion
being the major one, though *not* the only issue I concern myself with.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                    "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * ...Drop Your Carrier, We Have You Surrounded.
From: mikep@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Mike Powell)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Today's Joke (Was: Right To Not Support)
Date: 29 Jul 92 03:28:13 GMT
Organization: HP Santa Rosa Site (NMD MTA MWTD)


	
	The acid test about the key reason behind a decision to abort
	would be to ask the would-be mother: "If it were possible to
	move the fetus into another willing woman, who would then give
	birth to the child, after which the responsibility for raising 
	the child would return to you, would you take this path?"

	Stated another way.... is pregnancy and birth the deciding factor
	in the abortion, or is it the impending parenthood?

	Who doubts that abortion is, in most all cases, about avoiding
	parenthood? (vs. avoiding pregnancy and birth)

	-Mike-
Xref: sparky soc.women:14385 talk.abortion:29658
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: soc.women,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights
Keywords: From: decay@
Date: 31 Jul 92 00:42:35 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <3503@copper.Denver.Colorado.EDU> csulaima@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Cynthia Renee Sulaiman) writes:
>Does anyone have or know the address for RCAR (Religious Coalition 
>for Abortion Rights?


RCAR
100 Maryland Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20002
(202)-543-7032


(I thought that I'd include the addresses of some other
groups that support legal abortion.  If an obvious one
is missing, that's because it's already in the talk.
abortion FAQ and my fingers are tired.)


American Association of University Women
2401 Virginia Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20037
(202)-785-7712

Center for Population Options
1025 Vermont Avenue, NW, Suite 210
Washington, DC 20005
(202)-347-5700

Feminist Majority
1600 Wilson, Suite 704
Arlington, VA 22209
(703)-522-2214

Multicultural Alliance for Reproductive Freedom
5123 Raleigh Street, Suite 16
Los Angeles, CA 90004
(213)-462-4006

Students Organizing Students (SOS)
1600 Broadway, Suite 905
New York, NY 10019
(212)-977-6710




Susan
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: kja@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (krista.j.anderson)
Subject: Re: women's place in life
Summary: joke
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 21:24:06 GMT

In article <1992Jul26.142146.1@engr>, s_mesbah@engr writes:
> 	I am new to this group and I'd just thought I'd share my views with
> you.  I think that all you women should get away from the computer and start
> doing what you were created to do (kitchen, kids, and domesticated love slave).

<sarcasm mode on>
Yeah?  Well, maybe you should get away from the computer and start
doing what you were created to do - go fight a nice,
population-controlling war and if you survive, bring back lots of
looted treasures to see if you can win yourself a harem.
<sarcasm mode off>

Women as baby-making-machines and men as war-making-machines are
equally obsolete.
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
From: CS19240760T@LUST2.LATROBE.EDU.AU (VURGUN, SINAN)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: RE: women's place in life
Date: 30 Jul 92 03:35:12 GMT
Organization: La Trobe University
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.22


	Geezes some of you people are fucked in the head.
	Obviously the guy who wrote the article was just trying to 
	get a reaction and what do you do? You write back an article
	with sarcasm mode on and off and bullshit like that. All you
	did was please the guy who wrote it. You don't have to respond 
	to everything.
 
Xref: sparky soc.women:14194 talk.abortion:29293 sci.med:14635
From: ccsmh@gdt.bath.ac.uk (Mark Harding)
Newsgroups: soc.women,talk.abortion,sci.med
Subject: Re: Ancient Methods of Birth Control
Date: 28 Jul 92 12:29:27 GMT
Organization: University of Bath, England

I recently read about an interesting method of birth control used in ancient
China.

The sex act wuold take place as normal but at the point of ejaculation the man
would have such great muscle control that instead of ejaculating into the woman,
the seman would be passed into the bladder.  It would then be passed later when 
the man urinated.

It's not a method that I'd like to try :-)    

Mark
From: ejohnson@graph.. (Liz Johnson)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Marine Corps Boot Camp
Date: 23 Jul 92 18:00:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Jul23.130050.14425
Organization: Computer Science, Indiana University

In article <1992Jul23.040948.9689@smds.com> rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)  
writes:
> In article <1992Jul21.204524.18758@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com>  
bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
> 
> >The last thing I recall hearing about abuses in the military - think it 
> > was even the Marines - was when somebody was abused so badly in 
>> training that they died - drowned, I think. 

> The incident you are thinking of happened at Paris Island during the mid
> fifties.  A drill instructor was marching his platoon through a swamp 
> and about a dozen recruits drowned. 

No, the incident is probably a more recent case, in the 1980's, where a  
Navy recruit drowned. He was afraid of whatever water exercise they were  
doing, but the person in charge forced him into the water and forced him  
to stay in the water. I don't remember the resolution, but I know that the  
recruit's family tried to sue. 
Liz Johnson
From: stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: A question about NOW
Date: 29 Jul 92 22:30:06 GMT
Distribution: na

In article <1992Jul29.172843.6465@adobe.com> kendall@adobe.com (Janice  
Kendall) writes:

+  There are other groups which have other agendas.  One group can not do
+  EVERYTHING or they'd lose their focus.  NOW focuses more on legislation.
+  Planned Parenthood focuses on medical services, education, and issues.
+  NARAL focues on abortion rights.  OWL focues on legislative issues
+  pertinent to older women.

Ok, then let's make it a wider circle, eh? Are there *any* feminist
groups that support women attempting to get thru college *financially*?
Any feminist groups supporting research conducted by women?

Is it any wonder that the more recent college graduated women don't
identify with NOW or feminism _per se_? They're applying the same 
yard stick to feminism that I do: what have you done for me lately?

Apparently, not much that matters to the persons involved.

K'Char
Xref: sparky soc.women:14301 soc.men:13860
From: dfpedro@nv2.uswnvg.com (Donn F. Pedro)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: Feminis
Date: 29 Jul 92 22:07:43 GMT
Reply-To: dfpedro@uswnvg.com.UUCP (Donn F. Pedro)
Followup-To: soc.women
Organization: I don't speak for them anyway.

In article <24092@castle.ed.ac.uk> emct46@castle.ed.ac.uk (J H Dempsey) writes:
:Hi Ive never posted to this group before, but I have a point to make for
:which I expect I will receive much abuse from a certain group of woman.
:What sparked this was watching TV last night I saw a piece about Woman
:and AIDS. This led me to think what the hell has AIDS and women got in
:common. 

For many years AIDS was thought of as a gay male disease.  The show 
may be trying to address that misconception.  As for the need of
education, ask Mr. Johnson.

:I mean its not like cervical cancer or other exclusively female
:diseases. AIDS infects men and woman equally 

The problem is that many do not believe, or did not believe, that
AIDS was truly an equal opportunity killer.  You give the disease the
opportunity and you eventually die.  There are *still* people on the 
net who will argue you blue in the face over it.

:and although some aspects
:(ie foetal infection) are concerns of woman it transmits itself by blood
:contact and intercourse from both men to women and women to men. 

I think that there are many issues, with regards to women and AIDS,
that need to be discussed.  Men make very good transmission devices.
We are practically walking syringes ferkrissakes.  Surveys have shown 
that too many men are quite resistant to safer sex practices (condoms)
for many reasons, most of them quite invalid when compared to the
concequences (death).

:This to
:me was a further example of some woman considering themselves a distinct
:species and can only be seen as feminism gone mad. 

This seems to me well within part of the spirit of this group.

Enjoy.

:AIDS is not sexist why should woman be.

Why you think this is sexist is beyond me.




     Donn Pedro ....................................dfpedro@uswnvg.com

		     There are no ordinary moments.
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: kossack@owlnet.rice.edu (Jordan Marc Kossack)
Subject: Re: Waiting periods for sex and domestic violence
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: Rice University
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 03:42:44 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.121332.57554@cc.usu.edu> slzm9@cc.usu.edu writes:
-    The NRA seeks to keep the AK-47 assault rifle legal to the public.

	Are you talking about the full-auto or the look-alikes? 
   The look-alikes are simply deer rifles that have the outward 
   appearance as the AK-47 carbine and tend to be very rugged 
   and reliable, qualities that are desirable in a hunting arm.  
   Further, the AK clones usually fire the 7.62x39mm round, which 
   is ballistically similar to the 30-30, commonly used for deer.  
   These hunting arms are legal in many states.  

	The real AK-47, on the other hand, is an automatic weapon. 
   Despite Hollywood myth and outright lies by certain hoplophobes, 
   one can not just walk into a gun store and buy a real AK-47. 
   Federal law, at this very second in time, prohibits "the public" 
   from buying automatic weapons.  Of course, the police and the 
   military can use those "evil, baby-killing death toys" to shoot 
   peaceful protesters at Kent State, but they are not available to 
   the general public.  So much for your assertion that the NRA is 
   trying to keep the AK-47 legal.  Do you want to try again?  

   ( The black market is another story.  Gangs that smuggle in TONS )
   ( of drugs don't have much difficulty bringing some guns with the ) 
   ( drugs, but you knew that, right? )  
  

- That is enough for me to know they are misguided. Noone needs an
- automatic weapon with that kind of firepower for self defense. 

	You're right.  I guess the police SWAT teams have automatic 
   weapons so they can line all of us against the wall and murder 
   us if we complain about such things as the Rodney King beating. 
   Silly me - I thought the cops had them for defense.  I'm so naive. 


-                                                                Gang
- members however find it an excellent weapon for turf wars.
  
	As noted above, they're illegal.  But then again, so are turf 
   wars and narcotics trafficking - I don't think the gangs care.  

- Peace, but not without justice,
- Zip
	But I thought you favored bans on self-defense weapons.  
   Where's the justice in that?  Do you enjoy the fact that most 
   rapists are larger/stronger than their victims?  By denying 
   women the right to bear arms for self-defense, you're basically 
   suggesting that a woman should lie back and enjoy it.  Feh!  


-- 
 Jordan M Kossack  |  "Don't dial 911;    
 kossack@rice.edu  |   Dial M1911A and let it ring seven times." 
  +1 713 240 2073  |         -- sybok@m37-332-1.MIT.EDU (The Terminator)
  
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: tweaver@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Tim Weaver)
Subject: Re: Danielle  (story)
Organization: Kalamazoo College
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 16:08:03 GMT

>)      The cops pulled over.
>)      They took Danielle from the car and led her into the desert, past
>)a wooden sign with bright red letters that said TRUST. She looked up at
>)the sky but saw nothing there.
>)      "You can't kill a man, little lady," the cop said. He put his gun
>)to her head and pulled the trigger. Danielle's head was blown apart and
>)her body slumped to the sandy ground.
>)      The other cop started laughing. "That there little lady's got guts,
>)huh?"
>)       "Shut up, Marvin," the first cop said as he put his gun back in
>)the holster. "There's nothing funny about it."
>
>This ending really weakens the story, IMO.  Probably the most dramatic
>way to end it is to have the police arrest the girl, grill & threaten her
>for a bit, and then have her commit suicide in her cell.
>
>Much more plausible.  If you really insist on having the cops kill her, make
>one of them the father of the basketball captain at least.
>
The poster seems to really like blowing the heads off of people.  Witness
the last story posted.
-- 
|Timothy E. Weaver           | Kalamazoo College  |  (616) 383-5656        |
|Database Programmer/Analyst | 1200 Academy       | These are MY opinions! |
|email:  tweaver@kzoo.edu    | Kalamazoo MI 49006 | Mine!!  Mine!!  Mine!! |
+----------------------------+--------------------+------------------------+
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Provocative Questions re:
X-To: GINGER GROVER
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 01:54:00 GMT

ginger@ssc-vax.boeing.com (Ginger Grover) writes...
GG> Read "The Natural Superiority of Women" by Ashley Montague.  He not

Well...count up another Female Supremacist...


GG>                         THELMA/LOUISE '92

Yep.

Will
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Taglines are irrelevant.
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Promiscuity
X-To: M.H.SMITH
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 01:25:00 GMT

mhs@ukc.ac.uk (M.H.Smith) writes...
M.> In article <1992Jun27.204038.4368@zooid.guild.org> goid@zooid.guild.org (Wil
M.> eeves) writes:
M.> >Let's NOT blame MEN for the fact that there aren't more WOMEN using compute
M.> >and modems.

M.> But it is entirely the fault of men. You see, you start with an
M.> intelligent, articulate woman who is able to make up her own mind and
M.> wishes to use computers. Then you introduce boys and they tell her
M.> that she won't be pretty if she takes up a career in computing and,
M.> <BAM>, she instantly drops the idea and takes up women's studies
M.> instead to spend the rest of her life bleating on about how we
M.> should get more women into computing.

I disagree.  It is entirely the fault of these women who are foolish enough
to buy into that sort of crap *just* for the sake of getting a date!

If the sexiest man alive walked up to you and told you to jump off a cliff,
would you do it?  I hardly think so, but if you *were* so stupid enough to do
so, it would be *your* fault, not his.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                  "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Computer Error: (A)bort (R)etry (P)ick a window to break!
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: repnomar@leland.Stanford.EDU (Janet M. Lafler)
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 20:21:20 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.024035.919@spool.cs.wisc.edu> rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu writes:
>In <1992Jul28.181317.24582@leland.Stanford.EDU> repnomar@leland.Stanford.EDU (Janet M. Lafler) writes:
>>I don't believe in blaming either women or men for the fact that unintended
>>pregnancies sometimes occur.  I *do* think it's important to encourage both
>>parties to act responsibly.
>
>Define "responsibly", and explain why it is a good thing for those parties to
>act responsibly.

This sounds like an essay question.  How many words do I have?   For future
reference, I prefer requests to demands.

Mainly what I meant is that if people are going to have sex and don't want
to have children, they should a) both take responsibility for using birth
control, b) talk honestly about what they plan to do in case of an unplanned 
pregnancy *before* they begin a sexual relationship, c) stick to what they 
have said they would do if such a thing does occur.  And d) if either one 
can't live with what the other would do should the woman get pregnant, not 
have sex together.  All of this seems to be me to be in the best interests
both people, not to mention the potential child.

/Janet

-- 
Internet: repnomar@leland.stanford.edu // GEnie: J.LAFLER
"Turnips care deeply about many things," remarked Rush, appearing suddenly. 
"Turnips are strongly emotional vegetables...."
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men