HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rfs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (richard.f.j.soyack)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Men & Women, "Males & Females"
Date: 21 Dec 92 03:43:50 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Dec20.110910.24188@hemlock.cray.com> acp@cray.com (Anthony Peterson) writes:
>In article <1h0carINN1k9@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell) writes:
>>
>>>I've noticed that many men ( sometimes myself ) get very annoyed by
>>>women/feminists referring to them excluisively as "males".

(stuff deleted)

>>
>>I doubt that most people intend either term as an insult.
>>
>
>	Wouldn't the term males include male dogs, skinks, goldfish,
>
>	etc as well as male humans?

Being offended seems to be the growth industry of the 90's, I
just have to figure out how to make money off of it!  Hmmm,
who should I ask about that?

Rich Soyack
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism,talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: just passing through on way to alt.real-men.grunt.thud ....
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 23:11:53 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <MUFFY.92Dec18125621@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <1992Dec18.041148.14307@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
>>In <1992Dec17.211922.15114@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu> conditt@tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (Paul Conditt) writes:
>>>
>>>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.
>
>>Yup.  And if you chose to not reproduce, by using birth control, then you
>>*have* made your choice.
>
>No, you have not "chosen to not reproduce" when you have sex using birth
>control.  You have simply chosen to take a "1/5/10/etc percent *chance*
>of reproducing" (the actual percentage depends on the type of birth
>control chosen and how well you use it).  If you gamble and lose, then
>you have to deal with the consequences.

Like, say, getting an abortion.

>>And if the birth control fails, then it's certainly
>>a responsible decision to stick with your original choice.
>
>Exactly.  The choice of "taking a small chance of reproducing."

No - your choice to avoid producing offspring.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: baba@samadhi.Tymnet.COM (Duane Hentrich)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Cosmo covers
Keywords: womens bodies
Date: 17 Dec 92 23:14:04 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: BT North America (Tymnet)

In article <1992Dec17.135834.26669@cbnews.cb.att.com> lib@cbnews.cb.att.com (Lib) writes:
>In article <3008@tymix.Tymnet.COM> baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich) writes:
>>
>>I haven't looked at Cosmo in years so things might have changed.
>  
>How do you avoid seeing Cosmo? In my area you're surrounded by them in
>every supermarket check-out line.

Well I'm generally to busy getting brought up to date about Di and 
Fergie and my pals the Space Aliens. And counting items in everyone's
cart/basket. I mean, 'nine or less' should really MEAN nine or less.

-- 
d'baba Duane M. Hentrich	baba@Tymnet.Com

We have yet to learn that the thing uttered in words is not therefore affirmed. It must affirm itself, or no forms of logic or of oath can give it evidence. 
The sentence must also contain its own apology for being spoken. - R.W.Emerson
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: krw@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (keith.r.smith)
Subject: Re: cosmo covers--models too thin?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 16:32:42 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.151650.949@blurt.oswego.edu> tuttle@blurt.oswego.edu writes:
>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?  

Speaking only for myself, I like for a woman to be at/near her own best
"fightin' weight.  For one woman, that might be size 12 and curvy, with
great legs/buns/boobies. For another woman, that might be size 4, with
a moicro-small waist, shapely/toned arms and legs, and a graceful neckline.
What I think looks strange, is when you have somebody who would be a 
natural-size-ten, in her best all-around-shape, trying her damndest to
be a size 5, and sacrificing her beautiful curves in the process.  The
same goes for the natural/fit size five, trying to be a size 8/10, and
losing her waistline and the shape/tone of her hips, in the process.
If you are in great all-around-shape, then your weight has gotta' be in
the ballpark.  What size you are when you are in "optimum" shape, is a
function of your choice of parents.

To recap, I don't like stick-out-bellies, nor do I like stick-out-bones
(as in collarbones/shoulderblades) on a woman.  I _do_ like a look of
shape/tone/general fitness, at whatever size that a woman can muster same.

Keith R
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: "Amy Young Leith" <alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Mother In Laws
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 10:58:50 -0500

>	Why is there such a problem between wives and mother in laws.
>This is certainly a prevalent problem in todays and yesterdays society, or so
>it seems.  I certainly have this problem and I am hoping to get some help
>by posting to this newsgroup.  
>	It makes it awful hard for a (husband) especially with kids,  to
>lead a normal life when the two women are always fighting.  
>	Is this a dysfunctional type problem or what I'm sure there are some
>psych people out there?

My husband gets along wonderfully with my mother.  I get along just
fine with his mother.  He came from a very abusive family.  His mother
just recently divorced the bastard, and is finally coming back to
having a life of her OWN.  So I get along with her as well as anyone
could.  

I think the problems with the inlaws come from overprotective families
who think that the new interest is trying to "take" their child away
from them.

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
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: just passing through on way to alt.real-men.grunt.thud ....
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 04:11:48 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Followup-To: talk.abortion

In <1992Dec17.211922.15114@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu> conditt@tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (Paul Conditt) writes:
>
>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.

Yup.  And if you chose to not reproduce, by using birth control, then you
*have* made your choice.  And if the birth control fails, then it's certainly
a responsible decision to stick with your original choice.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism
From: wendy@sundown.mil.wi.us
Subject: Re: Nasty E-Mail
Followup-To: soc.women,alt.feminism
Organization: Wendy's World
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 15:09:09 GMT

Amy,

Being the originator of this thread (A comment of mine in another thread, 
started this one), I really kinda agree with you. Posting private email,
no matter how disgusting and nasty, would probably cause more problems then
it would solve. Most of the people emailing this type crap aren't worth a
response anyways.

Wendy
From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Mothers and daughters
Date: 17 Dec 92 00:26:17 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.


As a regular thing, I read soc.men first and then read all
of the articles in soc.women that aren't cross posted to soc.men
or talk.abortion.  Quite often that eliminates all of the 
articles in soc.women.  This gets to be a tad tedious, so I
thought I would try a little experiment.  The plan is to start
a new thread that is posted *only* to soc.women.

This article is posted to soc.women.  Please follow it up with
any topic that you want to discuss.  Change the title line, if
you like, but please don't add any groups to the distribution.

Maybe something good will happen.
-- 
Richard Harter: SMDS Inc.  Net address: rh@smds.com Phone: 508-369-7398 
US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742.    Fax: 508-369-8272
In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,alt.women,soc.men
From: chrz@tellabs.com (Peter Chrzanowski)
Subject: Re: How to Protect Women
Organization: Tellabs, Inc.
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 23:50:29 GMT

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? 

Guess where most of Aid to the Disabled welfare goes?  Wanna get welfare
but can't have kids?  Smoke some crack! 

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?

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 ...

> 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?

:-) ?

Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,alt.women,soc.men,misc.legal
From: michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael)
Subject: Re: How to Protect Women
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:41:05 GMT

In <1992Dec15.122038.11837@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:

>In my humble opinion, IF I were in an abusive relationship, I would LEAVE!  I
>would never allow it to degrade to a situation where I was in a life and death
>struggle and was forced to use deadly force in order to prevent someone from
>using deadly force against me.

Its not that simple.  There is a complex psychological relationship in
many abuse cases in which the victim is not able to simply leave.  And
then of course sometimes there is no place safe to go.  I'm not saying
that killing the husband is the solution we all want.  But sometimes
that's the only solution the women can find to escape their hell.

What they really need is counseling.  But that's kind of hard too.
"Pardon me honey, I'm going to get counseling for the abuse you are
giving me and my inability to leave you.  I'll be home later and you
can beat me up if supper is late."

I don't mean to make light of this.  But its not simply as simple as
leaving in a great number of the cases.

    Michael
From: acp@cray.com (Anthony Peterson)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Men & Women, "Males & Females"
Date: 20 Dec 92 17:09:10 GMT
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.

In article <1h0carINN1k9@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell) writes:
>
>>I've noticed that many men ( sometimes myself ) get very annoyed by
>>women/feminists referring to them excluisively as "males".
>
> have had people make comments to me along those lines, when I've 
>used "the male" in my posts, rather than "the man".  I tend to do
>it without thinking, as I consider the two terms equivalent.  I also
>don't mind people using "the female" instead of "the woman".  In fact,
>I didn't even notice it until it was pointed out to me.
>
>I doubt that most people intend either term as an insult.
>

	Wouldn't the term males include male dogs, skinks, goldfish,

	etc as well as male humans?
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism,talk.abortion
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Subject: Re: just passing through on way to alt.real-men.grunt.thud ....
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 22:16:32 GMT


---
Followups to talk.abortion, please.

In article <MUFFY.92Dec18125621@remarque.berkeley.edu>, muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu writes:
> In article <1992Dec18.041148.14307@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
|>Yup.  And if you chose to not reproduce, by using birth control, then you
|>*have* made your choice.
|No, you have not "chosen to not reproduce" when you have sex using birth
|control.  You have simply chosen to take a "1/5/10/etc percent *chance*
|of reproducing" (the actual percentage depends on the type of birth
|control chosen and how well you use it).  If you gamble and lose, then
|you have to deal with the consequences.

By, say, obtaining an abortion.

|>And if the birth control fails, then it's certainly
|>a responsible decision to stick with your original choice.
|Exactly.  The choice of "taking a small chance of reproducing."

... and thus presenting the woman with a second choice of
whether to abort or carry to term.

---
cj@eno.esd.sgi.com	C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"I don't think Christians should use birth control."  
				--Randall Terry, Operation Rescue

Xref: sparky soc.women:21686 soc.men:21455 alt.feminism:6260 talk.abortion:52456
From: michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: just passing through on way to alt.real-men.grunt.thud ....
Date: 19 Dec 92 18:05:07 GMT
Organization: University of Washington

In <MUFFY.92Dec18125621@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <1992Dec18.041148.14307@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
>>In <1992Dec17.211922.15114@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu> conditt@tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (Paul Conditt) writes:
>>>
>>>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.

>>Yup.  And if you chose to not reproduce, by using birth control, then you
>>*have* made your choice.

>No, you have not "chosen to not reproduce" when you have sex using birth
>control.  You have simply chosen to take a "1/5/10/etc percent *chance*
>of reproducing" (the actual percentage depends on the type of birth
>control chosen and how well you use it).  If you gamble and lose, then
>you have to deal with the consequences.

>>And if the birth control fails, then it's certainly
>>a responsible decision to stick with your original choice.

>Exactly.  The choice of "taking a small chance of reproducing."
>Muffy

I don't totally agree.  I'll agree that its responsible to make a
decision that you will stick to being careful to avoid one that you
can't stick to.  However I also realize that we are human and not
that perfect.

A woman may well change her mind about what she wants to do with her
body AFTER sex.  Especially if conception does occur.  At that point
if she chooses to have a baby, both parties become responsible for
it.  If a man doesn't want such responsibility, he shouldn't take part
in any sex act which could lead to having a baby.

    Michael Stanley (michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu)
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: mperron@abacus.bates.edu (Michael Perron)
Subject: Mother In Laws
Organization: Bates College, Lewiston, Maine
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:58:03 GMT

Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Mother In Laws
Summary: 
Expires: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: Bates College, Lewiston, Maine
Keywords: 

	Why is there such a problem between wives and mother in laws.
This is certainly a prevalent problem in todays and yesterdays society, or so
it seems.  I certainly have this problem and I am hoping to get some help
by posting to this newsgroup.  

	It makes it awful hard for a (husband) especially with kids,  to
lead a normal life when the two women are always fighting.  
	
	Is this a dysfunctional type problem or what I'm sure there are some
psych people out there?

	Any contributions thoughts or comments would be appreciated...
immensely, greatly, truly. My apologies if this is not the proper group
for such topic.

Mike Perron
mperron@abacus.bates.edu

Newsgroups: soc.women
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 04:05:00 GMT

lmann@jjmhome.UUCP (Laurie Mann) writes...
LM> In article <1f8rhcINNmgm@transfer.stratus.com>, dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan
LM> tzendruber) writes:
LM> > In article <12436@jjmhome.UUCP>, lmann@jjmhome.UUCP (Laurie Mann) writes:
LM> > > The constant comments by men in soc.women.
LM> > Don't forget the resident women in soc.men (or is that okay?)

LM> I haven't read soc.men in years.  I gravely doubt that the number of
LM> female posters exceeds the number of men posters on a regular basis.

LM> The problem in soc.women is that the emphasis of the discussion OUGHT to
LM> be what women's attitudes are about their issues.  In fact, when women expre
LM> their opinions here, generally men leap on them and tell them how wrong they
LM> are.  You can't discuss things here like rational human beings, and it's
LM> why so many of us who'd PREFER to discuss things without flaming get
LM> disgusted and leave regularly.


And this is supposed to be the fault of the men who debate here??

If one discusses an opinion in a public forum, he/she should be prepared to
defend it.  And *not* all disagreements constitute flames, despite the fact
that you seem to be equating "I think you're wrong" with a flame.  Now, IMHO,
I consider "You're a .... (some four letter word...)" is more of a "flame" than
"I think you're wrong".

Indeed, many people (and many of those are women, so I don't wish to hear you
tell me that it is only men who have a capacity for destructive argumentation)
have disagreed with me, and I haven't considered them *all* to be "flames"
(*many*, but not all... <-: )

If you don't want anyone to disagree with you, nobody is stopping you from
starting a private mailing list.  This seems to be the best way of eliminating
the prevalence of people disagreeing with you and others who share similar
opinions with you.

---
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 * Oooh...  Got my floppy caught in my PKZipper.....
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: lib@cbnews.cb.att.com (Lib)
Subject: Re: Cosmo covers
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 13:58:34 GMT
Keywords: womens bodies

In article <3008@tymix.Tymnet.COM> baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.183556.2379@Princeton.EDU>, mhnatsis@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Martha Helen Natsis) writes:
>|> 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)
>
>Could be. I remember reading about the photographer(s) who do Cosmo's covers.
>It seems they(or was it just him?) prefer young women for models. In
>this case young is under 14 years. Checked out a couple of subsequent
>issues and it sure seems possible.
>
>I haven't looked at Cosmo in years so things might have changed.

  
How do you avoid seeing Cosmo? In my area you're surrounded by them in
every supermarket check-out line.

Newsgroups: soc.women,talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Planned Parenthood
X-To: ALL
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 05:36:00 GMT

warren@opl.com (Warren Lavallee) writes..
WL> In <1992Nov21.084646.21687@r-node.gts.org> ndallen@r-node.gts.org (Nigel All
WL> writes:
WL> >   "I am proud to join Planned Parenthood, an organization that has
WL> >long been the standard-bearer for individual liberties and the
WL> >freedom to choose whether and when to have children," said Maraldo.

WL> Right.  Tell that to people in China where our alledged hero Planned
WL> Parenthood is supporting MANDATORY abortions when you exceed the quota
WL> per family.

Really!  You have a reference for this?  I'd love to get a copy of it.
Thanks!


WL> >"It is both exhilarating and humbling to be part of the mission of
WL> >Margaret Sanger, Alan Guttmacher and Faye Wattleton.  These
WL> >visionaries have exemplified the highest standards of courage and
WL> >commitment."

WL> I'd be embarrased to bring up those names.  Then again, it
WL> fits the facade the writer is trying to create.

WL> So far I had yet to see an announcement from Planned Parenthood
WL> that tells the truth about itself.  It's always candy coated,
WL> full of deception and outright lies.

WL> References furnished upon request.

Ah, you do... please send or post.  Thanks again.

---
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 * GOiD is a state of mind.
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,alt.women,soc.men,misc.legal