HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Technical Dating/Divorce Question
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 20:46:29 GMT

farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
] In article <7550027@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> erik@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Erik Lode) writes:
] >	For those who remember the K-Mart incident . . .
] >	(One wonders if the restraining order was granted.)
] >
] >	Fort Collins _Coloradoan_			Oct 23, 1992
] >
] >	    Woman surrenders after two-hour siege at Glenwood court
] >
] >By The Associated Press
] >
] >  GLENWOOD SPRINGS -- An armed woman who was distraught about her divorce
] >held authorities at bay for more than two hours Thursday morning at the
] >Garfield County Courthouse before she surrendered.
] 
] Oh, but remember the defenses by several men on the net when men kill
] wives over divorce and/or child custody hearings?  "This just shows
] what a rotten deal men get!  The poor man was pushed beyond his
] breaking point."
] 
] So, in the interest of fairness:
] 
] "This just shows what a rotten deal women get!  The poor woman was
] pushed beyond her breaking point."
] 
] Yeah...
 
Are you suggesting that the use of firearms in the
preservation of a marriage is NOT a good thing?

Where Are You 'Traditional Family Values?'

Likewise, should the ability of either party to use firearms
be a consideration when 'dating/divorcing' comes up?

Personally I have found that resolving the question:

"Why would I waste Ammunition to end this?"

Tends to focus the reasons for maintaining or ending
any relationship, and provides a modest redirecting of
the 'emotional trauma' into "clearer perspective."

Once one gets beyond the 'desire' to KILL the other
person, all the rest of it is simple.....

ciao
drieux

ps: top down design is not just for programming....




-- 
Modern Day Problems:
Hickory, Dickory, Dock - Three Mice Ran up a Clock
The Clock Struct one, 
and the Other Two will be Upgraded In the Next Release.
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Subject: Re: Self Appreciation (was: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Date: 13 Nov 92 10:16:21 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: usa

In article <2882@devnull.mpd.tandem.com> dwelch@mpd.tandem.com (Dan Welch) writes:

[good stuff about how men have insecurities about their bodies the 
 same as women do, and that men have the same kind of misconceptions
 about what women want as women have about what men want. but I noticed
 a few other things...]

>you are probably aware of the insecurity most women (incorrectly, IMHO)
>feel about their breasts.  

Actually, Daniel, at the moment I am aware of PAIN in my shoulders
from my bra straps holding up my (^&**%&(^*(%^F&*%&( LARGE BREASTS.
Not to mention the PAIN in my upper back, also from the &*^&(&*( things.
AndAnd I am often self-concious of the things because they're so damn
big and bulky and in the way. This is at the end of a long day wearing
a bra that doesn't quite fit right - I'm in an 'in-between' week (my
bra size varies from 40 to 42 depending on how I've been eating and
excercising, and my cup size varies from DD to DDD depending on my
menstual cycle, and I hate to shop for bras anyway). I find breast
reduction surgery scary, but it's becoming more and more attractive
every year - and not for cosmetic reasons.

Sigh. Why did I pop in with this? Oh, yes. Most women are unhappy
about their bodies; often it seems to be a "grass is always greener"
situation. While my breasts fit my junoesque figure and 5'9" frame, 
they're also (to me) a pain. I envy my friend Betsy, who is 5'0", slightly
curvy, and around a size 6 - not because I think thin is better,
but because I've never been the 'small, petite, girly'-type. Betsy,
who has been that size all her life, would rather have more curves
and more height so she'll look like 'an adult woman' rather than
'a 14-year-old'.

And while I can not speak for men (nor can I really speak for all
women, but it's a bit closer :-) I am not surprised that men also
might be dissatisfied with their physical bodies as well.

>believe this, check out an issue of "Ms." magazine.  Count the number
>of adds for perfumes, make-up, clothing, breast enlargements, etc.  

Actually, "Ms." does not take advertisements.

-jen
From: martinc@hatteras.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Strong women in film (was Re: What do you Am men think about Am women?)
Date: 12 Nov 92 01:41:47 GMT
	<1992Nov9.050437.20319@leland.Stanford.EDU>
	<MARTINC.92Nov9101143@grover.cs.unc.edu>
	<1992Nov11.095106.7831@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Followup-To: soc.women
Organization: UNC Department of Computer Science
In-reply-to: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU's message of 11 Nov 92 09:51:06 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.095106.7831@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:

   In article <MARTINC.92Nov9101143@grover.cs.unc.edu> martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:
   >In article <1992Nov9.050437.20319@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
   >   Just a coincidence that nearly all the lesbian and bisexual women are
   >   killers?
   >
   >Was there *anyone* in the film who wasn't a killer?  Except for the
   >corpses, of course.

   But the problem is that we see a multitude of hetero characters who
   are everything from wonderful people to bad cops.  Lesbigay characters
   are few and when they do appear, are usually either played as comical
   stereotypes or they're evil and perverted.

Are we talking about _Basic Instinct_ now, or film in general?  I'm not
sure (at least) that I disagree with you in general -- although in my
more curmudgeonly moments I wonder how many hetero characters there are
who aren't either played as comical stereotypes or evil and perverted.
But as I think about the characters in _BI_, it seems we've got

   - Sharon Stone's character, who is bi and neurotic, but may or may
     not be a murderer at all.

   - SS's girlfriend (can't recall the actresses name) who was lesbian
     and murderously jealous, and accident prone.

   - Michael Douglas's psychiatrist girlfriend who is straight -- I
     think; was there some mention of her bopping Sharon Stone?  If so,
     can we trust Sharon Stone? -- psychotically obsessed with Sharon
     Stone (an emotional reaction I can identify with) and at least
     perhaps a murderer.

   - SS's older lady friend who is gay-ish and a one-off murderer.

   - Michael Douglas himself, who is straight so far as we know but is
     on the take, known for shooting suspects on the slightest
     provocation -- and we certainly see him kill someone outside of the
     usual rules by the end of the movie -- and is kinky enough that
     he's turned on by making it with a woman who he thinks is a
     sadistic serial murderer.

   - and a mess of walk-on characters who we never get to know well
     enough to go to bed with.

The evidence that this is an anti-gay movie seems *less* than
overwhelming. 
--
		Charles R. Martin/(Charlie)/martinc@cs.unc.edu
     Dept. of Computer Science/CB #3175 UNC-CH/Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3175
	    3611 University Dr #13M/Durham, NC 27707/(919) 419 1754
     "Oh God, please help me be civil in tongue, pure in thought, and able
      to resist the temptation to laugh uncontrollably.  Amen." -- Rob T
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Women in Combat
Date: 11 Nov 92 12:57:21 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

vaccaro@novavax.UUCP (N. Trafford Vaccaro) writes:
] In article <3691@creatures.cs.vt.edu>, debra@creatures.cs.vt.edu (Debra Potts) writes:
] > >If we don't let women into combat because, as a group, they are weaker 
] > >than men, then the consistent thing to do would be to bar asians
] > >(who are, I think, on average weaker than whites), and maybe even bar
] > >whites (who are, perhaps, on average weaker than blacks -- we need to
] > >collect some data on this one). Is this the way you think?  
] > 
] As long as you can carry my wounded butt out of the line of fire, I 
] don't care who you are or what gender. That is why they have 
] minimum criteria for fitness, like carrying one's own weight (pull ups,
] etc).
 

no rear area units are ever over run....

] One thing that no one ever seems to mention, though. When a fire team
] or rifle squad is out in the field, teamwork is essential. It's hard
] enough having teamwork with all the the other petty fights and
] arguments and feuds, and peoples' lives are at stake, during
] peacetime too, when you're working with heavy or dangerous equipment.
] You want people to keep their minds on their job. Now what do
] you suppose is on a lot of 18 year old men's minds when they
] are sitting out in the field, bored, and haven't seen a female
] in weeks? I've seen what happens when several young men are
] trying to "date" the one woman that shows up at the enlisted club.
] They're at each other's throats. 

sounds like your unit was HOSED.

ciao
dreiux

ps: so why are the national forest fire firghters
having so few of these problems?



-- 
Modern Day Problems:
Hickory, Dickory, Dock - Three Mice Ran up a Clock
The Clock Struct one, 
and the Other Two will be Upgraded In the Next Release.
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 16:41:28 GMT

In article <1dpur5INNdff@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>charleen@ADS.COM (Charleen Bunjiovianna) writes:
>
>>>I jsut don't understand this.  Do youmean that your love for the
>>>child is conditional on whether its DNA matches yours?
>
>>I don't understand this either.  Do you mean you won't mind if the
>>nurses switch babies on you in the hospital after you've given birth?
>
>If I had raised a child for a number of years, and then one day received
>a phone call "Gee, Ms Peri, we're very sorry, but little Timmy is really
>not your child.  Little Jimmy here is."  Would I be so quick to trade
>Timmy for Jimmy?  I don't know.  It would certainly be a heart-wrenching 
>decision.
>
>Would you be so quick to trade?

There is more at stake here than trading comic books. One interesting
point is that adapted children often go to extreme efforts to find
out who their real parents were, once they find out that they were
adapted.

Another interesting point, if the real parents wanted their child
back, and you did not want to give it up, you may be guilty of
kidnapping, or something similar. But at any rate, it would not be
your sole decision, other parties have a stake in this as well.

As was pointed out in another post, it would make no difference
if it were discovered 20 years later, the situation would be irrevocable.
But if the child were still a baby, the same would not be true.

Afterthought - would not imprinting be a problem?
 
>							--  Michal


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: A Soc.Presidential Election Poll! Please Respond!
Followup-To: soc.women
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 22:49:52 GMT

In article <1992Nov2.170238.10284@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
>In article <1d04qnINN1r3@morrow.stanford.edu> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>)In article <1992Oct30.233309.3885@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
>)>(such as more money for Breast Cancer, which is already overfunded when
>)>compared with other forms of cancer.)
>)
>)Does AIDS funding raise your hackles too?
>
>Nope.  
>
>It does seem to me that our funding system is based primarily on political
>pressure rather than medical merit, though.  Which really is a pity, I
>think. 

So you think it's a pity.  That's still the way governmental funding
of anything works.  Why do you think ACT UP was formed?

I happen to think it's ridiculous that 1/3 of 1% of medical research
funding goes into researching new forms of contraception.  Until
there's a political mandate to change this, I can think it's
ridiculous all I want.

>However, 'breast cancer' appears to me to be being funded well beyond any
>comparable form of cancer (in both absolute terms and fundings per death)-
>and is being used as a 'political football'.

Breast cancer is the leading cancer in women.  It's second only to
lung cancer in the number of female victims it claims.

We still don't know why women get breast cancer.  For a long time, fat
intake and obesity were thought to influence it (from the breast
cancer rates in different countries).  However, a recent study found
no correlation in American women. 

>The breast cancer funding issue alone isn't significant alone, all by
>itself, but is symptomatic of the broader problems with Clinton's allegedly
>"pro-woman" agenda, which unfortunately (IMO) winds up to be "pro-woman" at
>the expense of men in many cases.

I don't see where Clinton is anti-men.  I know that his view on "dead
beat dads" has raised the hackles of many here on the net.

>Women may have legitimate conerns about how the medical establishment is
>meeting their needs - however, ever increasing funding for 'breast cancer'
>without any sense of proportion for other diseases isn't going to solve
>any of these other problems that may be out there.  It's pure pork-barrell
>(IMO).

I've heard the same claims made for AIDS funding (that it's far beyond
what is needed). 

Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer)
Subject: Re: Entry level salaries (was: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Organization: Swarthmore College, PA
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 06:26:46 GMT

In article <MUFFY.92Nov9082355@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <9NOV199210165558@mary.fordham.edu> nissim@mary.fordham.edu (Leonard J. Nissim) writes:
>>[Instigatory quote...]
>>Here are the *new* statistics (from the November 1992 issue of "Notices of 
>>the American Mathematical Society"):
>>9-month academic salaries of people with new Ph.D.'s in mathematics:
>>(`new' means granted during the 1991/92 academic year) 
>>Median salary for men----$34,000  (interquartile range--31,000 to 36,000)
>>Median salary for women--$34,900  (interquartile range--33,000 to 37,100)
>>Note that women earn over $1.02 for each $1 earned per man.  
>
>[Discussion on difference between mean and median...]

Another possible skewing perhaps overlooked in those figures, and to my eyes
a more relevant one is the figures for number of men and women graduating
this year with Ph. D.'s in math.

Perhaps, women's higher wages, (the implication by Leonard being that the
difference is small), may be fully explained in that women math Ph.D.'s are
more of a commodity than men math Ph.D.'s (which if one accepts Leonard's
claim as being accurate would imply that the value of being a female
commodity in a more traditionally male discipline is not particularly rewarding
financially.  Granted there is an implied causal link in there which may not
exist, yet I am unfrightened by that possibility.)

-dave
Xref: sparky soc.women:19324 alt.feminism:4172 soc.men:19074
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Date: 11 Nov 92 07:52:11
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
Distribution: usa
	<1992Nov8.003821.27694@ils.nwu.edu>
	<1992Nov8.190743.8606@dragon.acadiau.ca>
	<1992Nov11.070434.14395@dragon.acadiau.ca>
	<11NOV199210045505@mary.fordham.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: nissim@mary.fordham.edu's message of Wed, 11 Nov 1992 14:04:00 GMT

In article <11NOV199210045505@mary.fordham.edu> nissim@mary.fordham.edu (Leonard J. Nissim) writes:
>In article <1992Nov11.070434.14395@dragon.acadiau.ca>, 
>891666t@dragon.acadiau.ca (Trish Turliuk) writes...
>[intermediate posts deleted] 
>>Do you *REALLY* equate this necessary survival list with my desire for a
>>choice over what kind of images I am forced to see every day? I'll bet
				> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Nobody ever put a gun to my head and said "Watch this or else!"  
>Every television set I've ever seen has an "off" switch.

No billboard I have seen has an "off" switch.  Shall I stop going to
work to avoid the ads?  No newspaper has an "off" switch.  Should I not
read newspapers?  Magazines contain ads.  Many books have ads in them,
although these are fairly easy to skip over.  Many products have ads on
them, and the stores you buy them in have ads everywhere.  There are
trucks carrying billboards around to advertise cigarettes.  Regular
transport trucks have ads.  Taxis have ads.  Buses have ads.  People
wear t-shirts with ads.  You hear ads on the radio.  There are ads in
some elevators.  I don't even *watch* TV and I see hundreds of ads every
day.  The only way to escape them would be to stay in my house and avoid
any media.  I'd rather have a semblance of a "normal" life.

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
~Weavers' fingers flying on the loom/patterns shift too fast to be
 discerned/all these years of thinking/ended up like this/in front
 of all this beauty/understanding nothing~ - Bruce Cockburn
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: penises
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 18:06:12 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <1992Nov5.094711.14214@smds.com> rh@smds.com writes:

> As the saying goes, it isn't the wand that counts, it's the magician.

  Ahh, but you can't churn butter with a toothpick! :-)

(with apologies to Robin Williams)


semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mike Levine: Triumph 		               *
********************************************************************************
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Sad Day for Liberty
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 08:07:09 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.183211.6015@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> jrmo@volta.att.com (J.R.Moore) writes:
>
>The Libertarian party, strong supporters of gays and lesbians and any
>other group believe that all people should be allowed to do whatever they
>like with their bodies, money, and property unless they use fraud or
>force on another person.  That government should exist soley to protect
>citizens from force and fraud.  The party was a pioneer in having black,
>Hispanic, gay, and lesbian candidates/leaders before it was fashionable.
>The party, however, would disagree that groups need special protection,
>since the constitution guarantees all equal protection.

Yep.  "The law forbids both the rich and the poor to sleep under
bridges."  

I was attracted to the Libertarian Party until I realized that the
answer to every injustice was to tell the person being victimized,
"You don't have the right to be served if the owner doesn't want to
serve you.  What you do have the right to do is to found your own
business and then refuse to serve whoever you want."

Sorry, but that's not my idea of justice or a society I want to live
in.  I also find it interesting that so many Libertarians are
middle-class hetero white folks, who probably encounter less prejudice
and discrimination than the rest of us.

I talked several friends out of voting for Libertarians when I showed
them some postings on the net by Libertarians on the topic of "freedom
of association."  (Those posts are usually eye-opening, to say the
least.)

Newsgroups: soc.women
From: parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: Men farting
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 22:35:15 GMT

annan@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:

>In article <1992Nov3.103245.1@mdcbbs.com>, rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:
>......
>> dealing with the farts was a very low priority.
>> 
>> 
>>   If you really dislike it so much, keep a lighter handy and set one of the
>> longer ones on fire. That'll send a clear message!

>Actually, I also find it's a god way of reducing the smell. Not to mention
>reducing the greenhouse effect (I think).

Probably not, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, too.   ;)

>James Annan.
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: cfaks@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Alice Sanders)
Subject: Re: getting fired after making sexual harrassment complaint - illegal?
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 02:19:33 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

>cfaks@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Alice Sanders) writes:
>
>>I'm looking for information for a woman I know who was put on probation at
>>work the day after she made a sexual harrassment complaint against a male
>>coworker.  Her supervisor was a woman with whom she got along very well
>>until the day after she made the complaint.  She had worked at the company
>>for three years and had an excellent work record.  Other women in the
>>company also wanted to complain about this harrasser but were afraid.
>>This woman took it upon herself to come forward because she was confident
>>of her position in the company and so was not afraid.  After being put on
>>probation and being under severe stress, she became ill and missed 10 days
>>of work out of 60 days, all with sick pay.  She was fired 90 days to the
>>day that she had made the complaint, supposedly for missing too much work.
>>Later she was told that she did not fit the image of the company.
>
>>Can anyone provide info as to this woman's rights, to what extent her
>>treatment was illegal, etc.?  She has gone to the labor board and intends
>>to hire an attorney. Any suggestions?  Thank you.
>
>>Alice
>> 
>
Darren MacKenzie writes:

>Yes...if the company didn't directly fire her for the complaint, but for
>SUPPOSEDLY missing too much work (or whatever), then the company is
>perfectly in legal rights of doing it (on a technicality).  They can't
>prove that she was fired because of the complaint...she was
>SUPPOSEDLY fired from other reasons.  I believe another legal possibility
>would have been to make things hard for her (without breaking laws), and
>sort of FORCING her to quit.  I see this as another possibility.
>-Doc
>
>-- 

Alice Sanders answers:

So are you saying that as long as the company does not state that they are
firing her for making the complaint, that that means they fired her for
something else, and she has no recourse legally?  Do you have to 'prove'
being fired for the complaint, or can't you just show that it is 'likely'
that you were fired for the complaitn?  I understood that you don't have
to prove the same way in a case like this that you do in a criminal case.
I understood that you can use 'preponderance of the evidence'.

I am curious what others might think about this.  This is the first
response I got that looked like she really doesn't have recourse except by
showing that she was coerced to quit.  She didn't quit, though, they fired
her after three months of harrassment.  They also falsified her review
records, to look like she had a bad review.  And the harrassment started
the day after the complaint, despite an excellent 3-year employment
record.

Thanks.

Alice


Newsgroups: soc.women