HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: How Strong Should a Man Be? and RESPECT!
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 21:54:47 GMT

In article <93005.151253ROPERK@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> K. Roper <ROPERK@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:

}  Strong enough to admit that yes, women sweat, fart and belch.

No, no, no, no!  It's "Horses sweat, men perspire, and women glisten."
As for farting and belching, I have no idea what you are talking about...

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                  Illiterate?  Write for FREE help...
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women.alt.feminism
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: AFDC Statistical anomaly (Fraud?)
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 18:01:07 GMT

As a result of a discussion in another thread, I've been looking into
AFDC and child support statistics recently.

I've noticed a rather curious anomaly.

The Census Bureau, based on 'current population reports', lists
9,415 (thousand) women in 1987 having 'own children under 21 years of
age present from absent fathers as of spring of following year'.

For the same year, there were an average of 11,065 (thousand) AFDC
recipients.

Comments?

Things I can think of so far (besides widespread fraud)

Fathers getting AFDC
Women with children other than theirs
Women with father absent less than 1yr

but then again, not *everyone* should qualify for AFDC......
Xref: sparky soc.men:22168 alt.feminism:6827
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Double standards (Was Re: Living in a State of Siege)
Date: 5 Jan 93 06:40:10 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: soc.men,alt.feminism
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

| Tell me Gordon, do you ever question feminists who claim that 
| women can be as good as men in profession X?  (E.g. doing math.)
| ...
| If you care so much about *hard* proofs, then why don't
| you ask everybody to supply such proofs?

In article <1993Jan4.123927.11288@panix.com>gcf@panix.com(Gordon Fitch) writes:

>social factors accounted entirely for the difference in
>physical strength capacity between men and women.  I would
>tend to accept the feminist idea that women are about as
>good as men in computer programming because that's what I've
>observed in the world.  

And you also observed that men's bodies just break apart younger,
*naturally*.

I don't think that you used similar sampling methods.

>I'm not asking for proof, by the way, just a demonstration
>that social factors probably account for the shorter 
>lifespan of the average male.  

I mentioned several social factors; you just deleted them
without saying anything.  I wonder what you really mean
when you say "demonstration"...

>Maybe they do.  If, for
>instance, we found that the patriarchal model of dominance
>and control tended to decrease lifespan, which is what the
>talk of "working oneself to death" is all about, then not
>only would we have something to work with, but we'd have
>a feminist critique of our social organization to help
>us along.

You mean that they will be willing to even consider my observation
about men's lives as worth as much as their "analysis"?!

I wonder what gave you that impression...

>But my guess is that this avenue of approach won't serve
>your purposes, and we won't hear about it any more.

I think that reducing the pressure on men would help, but
I don't think that most feminists want that very much; they
know that they will have to pick their share in that case.

> )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(

Hillel                                     gazit@cs.duke.edu
Xref: sparky soc.men:22560 alt.feminism:7070
From: jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood)
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Reply-To: jsw@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 4 Jan 93 00:27:37 CST

In article 248@wam.umd.edu, rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>In article <1i80iqINN879@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:
>>
>>>4) Older women have more money than older men and therefore they
>>>   have access to better medical care.
>>
>>Not so.  Elderly men are usuallly better off than elderly women.
>>
>>Eg, the Economist (12/26/92, p. 39):
>>In the next century some of society's poorest people will be elderly
>>women...
>
>
>	This is misleading.  *Statistically* older men have more
>	money than older women simply because older women have a lot
>	of poor elderly women to drag their average down.  There are,
>	simply, less men left.  The men who get to this age are typicall
>	men that have had money to lead a comfortable life.  
>
>	Older women typically have the money from their dead husband's
>	life insurance.  
>
>
>
>-- 
>      Blaming "society" for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
> ---  boycott == coercion == censorship == closed mindedness == cowardice  ---
>	      "Psalms 23:1  The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want."  
>		Shepherds are for sheep.   -----      Pain teaches.


 Michal would prefer to believe statistics that support her feminist premises.
No amount of logic will modify her steadfast beliefs. 



Newsgroups: soc.men
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Feminists "analysis" of men (Was Re: Double standards )
Date: 10 Jan 93 16:09:14 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

In article <726644164@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
| Gordon, I would like to understand better your opinion about the
| quality of the feminists analysis, so I give you a simple question.
| 
| In the debate about abortion rights, feminists used many times the slogan:
| 
| "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be [a] sacrament."

Hillel, do you know the difference between sloganeering and
analysis?  "If men could get pregnant ..." was a clever
aphorism, but -- in my opinion -- is too hyperbolic to be
anything but a wisecrack.  My guess is that if men could 
get pregnant, in other words, if there were only one sex,
abortion would be on about the same level as having a
operation for an ingrown toenail, except it would be needed
a lot less.

So what's your point?
  
| Today, the political institutions (at least according to feminism)
| are men's based.  Still, abortion is legal and "no choice for men"
| is the law of the land.

I think I've explained about four times now that the lack of
choice for men derives from classical-liberal concepts of
individual responsibility.  When something goes wrong, you
find some individual to sue or put in jail.  I've agreed
that it seems unfair, and I'd tell you once again what I
think better alternatives are, were I not afraid you'd print
that dumb story again.  I fear for the sanity of the poor
electrons doomed to carry it yet again throughout the
universe.
-- 

 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
From: nissim@mary.fordham.edu (Leonard J. Nissim)
Subject: Names ( was: Re: What does "Male-dominated society" mean?)
Followup-To: soc.men,soc.women
Organization: Fordham University
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:17:00 GMT
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Distribution: usa
X-Posted-From: mary.fordham.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <C0Hpvy.6JK@srgenprp.sr.hp.com>, 
sam@sad.hp.com (Vicky Hansen) writes...
[intermediate post deleted] 
>This post left out my pet peeve -- names.  When I was born, I was to use
>my father's name.  When I married, I was supposed to switch to my husband's
>name.  When he left and I re-married, I changed again.  Some women are
>refusing to go along with this musical chair of last names by keeping their
>father's name eventhough it makes a mess of the children's last name.  I
>would love to see a return to the old method that originally got us "Johnson"
>from "John's son" and the forgotten "Mary's daughter" that kept everything
>equal.

For the record, you are in fact legally entitled to change your last name 
to that of any female ancestor of your own choice, or to any newly created
name of your own choice.  The problem comes in the naming of children.  Using
the last names of both parents leads to very many names after just 3 or 4 
generations.  It seems to me that there are fair (i.e. symetric) ways to give 
children a last name.  One example:  All girls get the same last name as their 
mother, and all boys get the same last name as their father.  This does lead 
to a sister and brother having different last names, but so did the old system, 
if the sister was married.  
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leonard J. Nissim  (nissim@mary.fordham.edu)   
Disclaimer:  "I speak only for myself."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky soc.men:22370 alt.feminism:6914
From: michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Mysogynist Bullshit
Date: 8 Jan 93 07:19:31 GMT
Organization: University of Washington
NNTP-Posting-Host: glia.biostr.washington.edu

In article <1993Jan6.205357.1745@msc.cornell.edu> hillyard@lynx.msc.cornell.edu.UUCP (Sean Edward Hillyard,F7 Clark,50649,) writes:
>From article <michael.726350308@glia>, by michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael):
>> Oh my god!  I just realized that Clinton's cabinet is also nonelected.
>> For that matter, so is every cabinet for every president I can remember.
>> I guess its time for us all to panic now.  Horrible having all those
>> nonelected people advising the president.  I mean we KNOW he can't
>> make any decisions for himself.
>
>The difference is that the cabinet can always be fired.  What does Bill do
>if he does not like the job his wife is doing?

How about ignore her or ask her to stop?  I don't think firing is
necessary.

I can see it now.  She just won't stop advising me.  Its been going on
for weeks.  I finally just gave up and just do what she says (yeah right).
*laugh*

    Michael Stanley (michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu)
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: chuckies@cs.mcgill.ca (Charles J Savoie)
Subject: Drunk Sex = Rape ? (was Re: Mysogynist Bullshit)
Organization: SOCS - McGill University, Montreal, Canada
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 03:53:17 GMT


Hillel->>Another BTW: if she sleeps with him while she is drunk, she can 
Hillel->>shout "rape" in the morning.  If he sleeps with her while he is 
Hillel->>drunk, he can't shout "rape" in the morning.
Julie->
Julie->I think anyone who falsly accuses someone is a criminal.  (And
Julie->are you going to say that a man has *never* falsly accused a
Julie->woman of something?)

Gotcha.

SEX WITH A WOMAN WHILE SHE IS DRUNK IS A LEGAL BASIS FOR RAPE CHARGES.

Understand this statement fully: men have been convicted of rape for
having sex with a woman while she was intoxicated.  Many people
consider it rape, too.  Thus it is not a false accusation, according
to the law.  So.  Should the man be put in jail?  How about the
women who does the same?  Do you think a man reporting a crime of
this sort be would taken seriously?  And how about a woman?

Thanks for making that excellent point.

Charles.

-- 

,.. .  . .  . ,.. . . ... ,.. ,..   =====================================
|   |--| |  | |   |<   |  |-  `-.   Charles Savoie  chuckies@cs.mcgill.ca
`'' '  ' `''' `'' ' ` ''' `'' '''   =====================================
Xref: sparky soc.men:22486 soc.women:22452 soc.couples:4642 soc.singles:35969
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,soc.couples,soc.singles
Subject: Re: How Strong Should a Man Be? and RESPECT!
From: quirke_a@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz
Date: 11 Jan 93 09:52:45 NZST
 <93005.151253ROPERK@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> <1993Jan6.135647.22974@cbfsb.cb.att.com>
Distribution: world
Organization: Welligton City Council, Public Access.
Summary: Ignore if you have a weak stomach
NNTP-Posting-Host: kosmos.wcc.govt.nz

jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton) writes:
>K. Roper <ROPERK@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:

>>  Strong enough to carry my purse in public and resist making
>>    stupid comments.
  
> A guy with two purses is a sissy.

   Them's fightin' words, Jimmy, m'lad !
   Shall we say garter belts at ten paces, hmm ?

Tony Q. (Standing up for his fellow sissys !)
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood)
Subject: Re: Reproductive Technologies... (was: Re:
Reply-To: jsw@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 4 Jan 93 00:48:29 CST

In article 10907@panix.com, gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:

>However, what I was thinking of was this: insisting that
>49% of custody go to men may run into the question of
>whether 49% of the men _want_ custody.  Considering the
>implacable resistance to paying child support shown here
>and elsewhere, I have the idea that a good many men might
>not consider your proposal a boon if the luck of the draw
>smiled upon them.  Take care: you may be giving ideas to
>the devious witches on NOW's General Staff for yet 
>another plot.
>-- 
>
> )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
>( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )


 For those of us who pay child support and had lived with our children
at one time, I take offense to your paragraph. It is my obligation
to support my children. It is not my obligation to support my ex.
You know little of this subject under today's law. 

 The Nat. Organization of Women has run its course. There time is
over. 

 What educational path Gordon have you taken that has led you
to believe one ounce of feminist bullshit?


Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
From: karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: Mysogynist Bullshit
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 04:13:56 GMT
Organization: MCSNet, Chicago, IL

In article <1993Jan12.151038.29113@llyene.jpl.nasa.gov> julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas) writes:
>In article <726790340@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan11.195613.9220@llyene.jpl.nasa.gov> 
>>
>>>Tell me, in your opinion, just what is a woman's place in society?
>>
>>Same as man's place.  No special duties and no special breaks.
>
>You say you don't want government forcing "nice" values on 
>companies.  I can almost hear people saying the same thing
>in the 50s and 60s about minorities and the government 
>forcing "nice" values like equal rights onto society.
>"Nice" values are what keeps society from being a pack
>of barbarians.

Except in the reproductive freedom and child care areas, where "nice" means
"give the woman everything except the bill - the man gets that".

--
Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900]

Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Duck and Jive (sounds like an English pub...)
Date: 7 Jan 93 00:48:21 GMT
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <1993Jan6.062023.27846@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>approve of a lot of those details. I do believe in adequate support for
>children, and that it's fair to force the natural parents to contribute
>to that support before you go to the taxpayers with the same demand. The

	As do I.  What I don't agree with is awarding support based on
means rather than actual costs.  And I don't agree with the idea that an
unmarried or divorced man can be legally forced to work overtime and multiple
jobs because he's supporting his children but that a mother or a married 
man can't be.  

	The current system is badly broken.  I think that it would be 
more fair to let the government handle it rather than see my brothers
sold into slavery out of convenience.  Let them buy Pampers instead of
B1's.  
								wr
From: tima@hls.com
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Circumcision, New facts
Date: 12 Jan 93 22:00:15 GMT


     [stuff deleted]
>
> I think you have a differnt view of circumcision then most.  It isnt mutilati
> on, It is done for health reasons.  That is why society as a whole does it
> now instead of just the Jews. 

My wife and I have three sons who were born in 1987, 90 and 91 none of whom
are circumsized. The subject of circumcision only came up when _we_ brought
it up when our first son was born. The attending physician said he and his
collegues rarely did it anymore and recommended against it. With the other
two sons, the subject never even came up.

> If it was mutilation your "Btw" comment was uncalled for since women dont
> "have it done to their sons".  Judiasm, a male dominated religion started
> it, probally for health reasons, and a mostly male medical est in America
> decided to start it themselves
> 
> Steve r

Tim
tima@hls.com
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.misc,soc.rights.human,soc.singles,soc.woman,alt.activism,alt.censorship,talk.rape,misc.legal
From: sga@cray.com (Steven G. Anderson)
Subject: Re: Justice?
Reply-To: sga@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 12 Jan 93 13:03:53 CST

In article 5995@tessi.com, allen@tessi.com (Allen Warren) writes:
>Then I read of *people* like your ex who actually and knowingly steal from the
>system and get away scott-free.  Your ex is a (pardon my anger) pariah!

No need to excuse your anger, and believe me, I have called her much worse.


Steve Anderson		139 more days of indentured servitude
			possibly only 73 more days.
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: UTNE READER - summary of male/female articles (Jan/Feb, '92)
Keywords: UTNE, men, women,
Date: 9 Jan 93 01:12:05 GMT
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <24719@galaxy.ucr.edu> starbuck@galaxy.ucr.edu (starbuck) writes:
>Mark,
>   Thank you for taking the time to post your summary of the

	yes, thanks.


Xref: sparky soc.men:22146 alt.abortion.inequity:6303 alt.feminism:6818
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited
Date: 5 Jan 93 01:30:13 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1i7uneINN7pt@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>
>>In article <1i4ul0INNjf6@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>>requiring a woman to notify anyone of 
>>>her pregnancy is a violation of her privacy.
>
>>Its not a violation of her privacy if you intend the result of her actions,
>>and the result of that pregnancy, to impact on SOMEONE ELSE'S financial
>>future.
>
>It is not the pregnancy that affects "someone else's" financial future.
>It is the birth.

Yeah, and it wasn't the -bomb- that killed twelve people, just the bloody
explosion. As the song says, ya cant have one without the other. The distinction
you have made is irrelevant, no pregnancy, no child, no problem. The pregnancy
-can- be aborted, the child cannot. 
 
>>Women should be free to keep from men the fact that they are pregnant,
>>presumably to keep them from influencing their decision on whether or not to
>>bear the child.
>
>At this point the men has no *legal* way to force the woman's decision
>on whether of not to bear the child.  So what good does it do to 
>legislate that the woman must tell him about the pregnancy?  (Besides
>the obvious questions of enforceability of such legislation....)

There is MAJOR financial planning that must be done, or do you think all
men millionaires who let their accountants pay for it all? And there is
still the absurd notion that they should have no say.
 
>>However, those same women should be able to bill the man for the result of
>>>her decision<, without his input, and without his concern.
>
>Strictly speaking, it is not the woman that bills the man.  Child support
>is ordered by the state on behalf of the child.

A real distinction here, no matter how stupid the rulings, it can be very
expensive fighting city hall.
 
>-- 
>
>                                                --  Michal
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Of course there's no reason!  


Rich

payner@netcom.com
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
From: hillyard@lynx.msc.cornell.edu.UUCP (Sean Edward Hillyard,F7 Clark,50649,)
Subject: Re: Mysogynist Bullshit
Originator: hillyard@msc2.msc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell-Materials-Science-Center
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 20:53:57 GMT

From article <michael.726350308@glia>, by michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael):
> In <1993Jan6.163239.28595@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan5.155059.26851@llyene.jpl.nasa.gov> julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas) writes:
>>>Why do many look upon women like Hillary Clinton as horrible because 
>>>she has a strong mind and career?  (I don't like her politically but 
> 
>>I think you have this turned around, everyone I know who has reservations
>>about Hillary Clinton have reservarions -because- of her politics, not
>>because "she has a strong mind and career". And she is now a very important 
>>-nonelected- official. Had she run for President, do you really think
>>that she would have lost -because- she is a women?
> 
> Oh my god!  I just realized that Clinton's cabinet is also nonelected.
> For that matter, so is every cabinet for every president I can remember.
> I guess its time for us all to panic now.  Horrible having all those
> nonelected people advising the president.  I mean we KNOW he can't
> make any decisions for himself.

The difference is that the cabinet can always be fired.  What does Bill do
if he does not like the job his wife is doing?

> 
> Get real.  Lots of presidents wives have offered advice to the
> president.  Reagan's wife corrected some of his faux pas and I don't
> even think she had a degree (but then Reagan wasn't too with it most
> of the time).  At least Hillary Clinton isn't receiving advice from an
> astrologer like Nancy Reagan was.

I have a question.  How much was Hillary involved in governing when Bill was
govenor?  Now, she worked as a lawyer and made tons of money so I have to
assume most of time was spent in that activity.  You see, the non-career wives
have most likely been doing similar things all through her husbands political
career (whether nothing, or giving advice her husband takes.), so to some
degree you know what you are getting when you elect the husband.  Has Hillary,
on the other hand, spent her time working as a lawyer, and now that he's
president wants her input into policy?  Could be a problem if Bill doesn't like
the job she's doing or her advice.

SEH
From: mcreynol@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: soc.libraries.talk
Subject: Library School Classes on the NET
Date: 5 Jan 93 12:36:06 CST
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services


Does anyone know of any graduate or continuing education
opportunities in Library Science over the Internet?

I have seen classes offered on the ME/U cable channel,
but I have not seen anything on the Internet from
"ALA accredited" library schools. 

If anyone has any information, I would appreciate hearing
from you.

--Mike McReynolds
  mcreynol@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu


Newsgroups: soc.libraries.talk
From: cbs@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Chris Syed)
Subject: looking for ssm people
Organization: UTCS Public Access
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 18:28:35 GMT

    Are there any librarians or computer people out there who are using
    or have used University of Lancaster Soft Systems Methodology as a
    planning or research tool? If this leaks out of N.America, sorry.
    I have already contacted people in the UK, Australia, and S.Africa.
    Info requested for thesis research. Thanks. 

-- 
--- 
         "We cannot think without imagining."  -- Thomas Aquinas
               cbs@.utcs.utoronto.ca (Chris Brown-Syed)
  FLIS PhD Office, Room 608 Bissell Bldg., Univ. of Toronto, 140 St.George St.
Newsgroups: soc.libraries.talk