HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Feminis
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 18:17:10 GMT

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. I mean its not like cervical cancer or other exclusively female
>diseases. AIDS infects men and woman equally 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. This to
>me was a further example of some woman considering themselves a distinct
>species and can only be seen as feminism gone mad. I beleive in equal
>opportunities, etc and I am not a sexist or a MCP but the similarities
>between the sexes far outweigh the differences and some woman think that
>to do away with men would be no bad thing.
>
>AIDS is not sexist why should woman be.

Many other posters have answered about the medical aspects to this
question.  I'll put in my two cents about the social aspects.  I live
in the San Francisco Bay area, which has been hit hard by AIDS.  I
don't think a week goes by without hearing or seeing a news story
about AIDS and some specific group.

Different social/ethnic groups have different needs and different
responses.  Is an informational campaign targeting gay men in their
teens and early twenties inherently ageist because it only targets
younger gay men?  Is a campaign that specifically targets Latinos
racist because it doesn't target Anglos?  I don't think so.  Yet your
post seems to say that any AIDS informational campaign that targets
heterosexual women (the group that has the highest rate of HIV
infection in the US right now) is inherently sexist.

As many posters have noted, the model for AIDS treatment (and HIV
infection prevention) in the US has been based on what worked for
white gay men.  This model is not working for women and other groups.
One of the local TV stations recently reported on the survival rate of
men vs. women after the diagnosis of AIDS.  Something like 30% of the
men died within two years, while something like 50% of the women died.
For the longest time, women of childbearing age were automatically
excluded from trials for experimental drugs for fear the drugs may
harm a fetus.

AIDS is a problem for all of us, but not all of us have the needs or
respond to the same programs.

Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Marine Corps Boot Camp
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 15:56:54 GMT

In article <MILT.92Jul24110320@primus.esd.sgi.com> milt@sgi.com (Milt Tinkoff) writes:

)I could be mistaken, but I think he's referring to this:
)
)Excerpted from a UPI wire:
)
)WASHINGTON (UPI) -- The Supreme Court Monday refused to disturb a
)ruling that the Navy cannot be sued by the family of a recruit who
)died when officers repeatedly forced him under water as he screamed
)for help during a training exercise.

Yes!  That's the one.  Thanks...

Newsgroups: soc.women
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Taking the Solo Road
X-To: HEINER BIESEL
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 00:08:00 GMT

biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel) writes...
HB> Now, just to keep things fair and equal, we really should start up egg
HB> banks, and push the development of the artificial uterus, so male
HB> same-sex couples can share in the joy of raising children of their own.

HB> Oh brave new world, oh wondrous technology...


Your cynicism and scepticism, though understandable, are slightly misplaced
because in fact, such technology *is* being researched.

Indeed, while I have not heard the feminist response, I doubt that it would
be negative, since so many seem to have decried women's "biological prison"
and would in all likelyhood welcome the opportunity to be free of it if they
wanted.

Of course, this would also make it easier to have children without the
presence of a female mate, as well.

Will
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Vulcans have less fun.
From: hwatters@armltd.uucp (Helen Watters)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: How much $$ is enough?
Date: 24 Jul 92 16:43:57 GMT
Organization: Advanced RISC Machines Ltd


Stewart Schultz posted about changes in the divorce laws in Canada
>If a married woman quits her job to raise children or maintain the
>household, her loss in seniority and competitiveness means a loss in
>income when she re-enters the job market.  This income loss represents
>a "burden of the marriage" that, in case of divorce, must be shared by
>her ex-husband, according to a report by the national Commission on the
>Status of Women and the Department of Justice.  Her ex-husband must
>shoulder his share of this burden until she re-establishes her career
>-regardless- of the time required, even if it takes the rest of her
>life.

On the face of it might seem to be another sting the husband, but those
who have stayed at home to to take care of the kids, will lose out
on experience, pay, benefits, pensions etc., and therefore if marriage
is a partnership, then when the partnership is dissolved, then they both
should share the profits and the losses.

At the moment one or other of the partners, usually the woman, is 
forced to stay at home as child care is expensive and often employers
are wedded to the bums on seats, 40hrs plus type working.

Provide more affordable, high quality childcare, and tailor it 
better to employers needs, change employers attitudes, so that
women who have had a child are no longer thought of as imbeciles, 
provide more decent part opportunities, more teleworking etc., 
I believe more women(/men) would return to work after 
having children and continue their careers.  

The way society is structured now the working partner, usually the
man, will have to support the low income/non working partner, 
usually the women. Make it possible for both partners to work, after 
the children arrive, and hopefully the working partner, usually the man,
won't have to pay out so often or so much or for so long.

Society *IS* is interlinked. So make the changes women need, that
are nice for men to have and some of the pain may disappear.

Helen
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: Mic.Oettinger@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Mic Oettinger)
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 14:44:43 GMT

In article <712221402@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>In article <VIXIE.92Jul26161023@cognition.pa.dec.com> 
>vixie@pa.dec.com (Paul A Vixie) writes:
>
>>We all have the right to keep our zippers zipped.  If we don't, there
>>are consequences.  The right of the child to be supported supercedes
>.......................................................
>>Both parents had a choice.  Sexual intercourse has well-understood risks.
>
>Please wait till the choice for women will be in a real risk
>and then preach that to soc.women.  I wonder how all these
>"for equality" feminists will feel when they will be treated
>just like men, and when what they have preached at men for the
>last twenty years will be preached at women...
>
>(I bet that they will shout "sexism!")


Your message is excellent. Thanks :)
Michelle
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: nancyo@fraser.sfu.ca (Nancy Patricia O'Connor)
Subject: Re: Right to not support
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 06:18:31 GMT

gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:

>In article <nancyo.712373787@sfu.ca> nancyo@fraser.sfu.ca 
>(Nancy Patricia O'Connor) writes:
>>We live in a society where DNA testing should eliminate this
>>uncertain paternity, and it would thus be (if he is able)
>>in the father's best interest to support his child.

>Thank you so much for deciding for other people what are their
>best interests; I don't know what all those stupid men would 
>do without the help of women like you...

I was not making any value judgments; I used the phrase
"best interest" in terms of reproductive fitness, or,
the success one has in producing offspring which survives
to reproduce.

I think it would be in a father's best interest in that regard
to ensure the survival of the child, rather than rely on a
society which, also in that regard, should not have any concern
for the child (since he or she is not related to the majority
of of its members).
From: falk@peregrine.Sun.COM (Ed Falk)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: A question about NOW
Date: 28 Jul 92 02:30:05 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: peregrine

In article <9965@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul) writes:
>In article <l721kaINN6es@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> falk@peregrine.Sun.COM (Ed Falk)  
>writes:
>+ 
>+ Because they don't have any money?
>
>Well, I haven't heard that they do/don't, but such an explaination
>is species when they can and do throw money into politics.

I knew the New York State lobbiest for N.O.W. about 12 years ago.
She was paid a wopping $6000/year for her lobbying activities.  (She
found temp work while the legislature was on vacation to survive.)
If this is your idea of "throwing money into politics", I'd hate to
see your idea of poverty.

Where do you think they get all the money you think they have?  Do
you think they get fat grants from Exxon or something?

		-ed falk, sun microsystems
		 sun!falk, falk@sun.com
	terrorist, cryptography, DES, drugs, cipher, secret, decode,
	DSS, FBI, NSA, CIA, NRO, SDI, communist, proletariat.
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Wednesday, 29 Jul 1992 20:13:43 CDT
From: Satish Movva <U37127@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Variations of a name

Hello,
  I dont know if this is the right forum or not for this question,
  but here goes..
  I am trying to find variations of the name Margaret and was wondering
  if you could provide me any.  I have Peggy and Marge so far.
  Thanks,
Satish Movva
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Danielle  (story)
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 22:35:11 GMT

In article <1992Jul18.084249.25068@sfu.ca> rauser@fraser.sfu.ca (Richard John Rauser) writes:

)      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.

Newsgroups: soc.women
From: biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel)
Subject: Re: Taking the Solo Road
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 17:24:40 GMT

Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:

>biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel) writes...
>HB> Now, just to keep things fair and equal, we really should start up egg
>HB> banks, and push the development of the artificial uterus, so male
>HB> same-sex couples can share in the joy of raising children of their own.

>HB> Oh brave new world, oh wondrous technology...


>Your cynicism and scepticism, though understandable, are slightly misplaced
>because in fact, such technology *is* being researched.

>Indeed, while I have not heard the feminist response, I doubt that it would
>be negative, since so many seem to have decried women's "biological prison"
>and would in all likelyhood welcome the opportunity to be free of it if they
>wanted.

No doubt. Of course, this scheme will eliminate the hormonal and emotional
bonding that is a typical effect of pregnancy, but if it liberates wymyn
from the yoke of in utero reproduction then it surely is worth this small
sacrifice. Parents and children will adapt quite easily to these
minor reproductive changes.

>Of course, this would also make it easier to have children without the
>presence of a female mate, as well.

Now that is carrying things too far. Denying wymyn their nuturing role
in the raising of children will simply produce another generation of
aggressive, sexist males and repressed, submissive females. That is
something we cannot tolerate, as it will simply perpetuate the patriarchy.

I'll support lesbian couples, and even het couples, as long as the male
is enlightened and supportive of wymyns struggles, but I will not
support a male couple.

Regards,
       H. Biesel
       who is trying to conform; very trying.
Xref: sparky soc.women:14014 soc.men:13636
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: Feminis
Date: 23 Jul 92 17:25:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1992Jul23.172543.171072
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Jul23.143912.15524@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> crussel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Carol A Russell) writes:
#
#Women are not sexist, or separate species.  But, if you'll recall, AIDS began 
#as primarily a disease of homosexual men.  No condemnations here of gay men, 
#but as they came in contact with bisexual men, who came in contact with women,
#the women then bear *children*.  We are not so selfish as to think of ourselves
#as more important as men - but we cherish the health of the children we give 
#birth to.  We are thinking of the future!

Oh, bullshit.

I am thinking of the women with HIV disease when I work
on women's issues and AIDS, thank you, not their hypothetical
children.  Janice Kendall made some good points about
the different course the disease takes in women, and some
of the obstacles that women face in seeking treatment.
I believe that another problem is that there is no
support network for these women.  The gay community
took a leadership role in this area in the U.S. and
in most cities there are wonderful community resources
for gay and bi men living with HIV.  Many people who
are judgmental about adult infection still sympathize
with pediatric cases and a fair amount of money is
available to help children with AIDS.  These resources
are still being created for women.  

It is not necessary to take money away from one group
of people living with AIDS or HIV infection to help
another - we need a larger pie rather than smaller
pieces.  The reports from Amsterdam this week indicate
that the number of women with HIV are growing much
faster than the number of men.  (HIV is more easily
transmitted from man to woman via het intercourse than
vice versa, and HIV is globally a heterosexual disease.)

Here in Pittsburgh, we have an AIDS Task Force.  The
ACT UP chapter meets with them regularly, and one
of the issues that we seem to always return to is
women with HIV and prevention for women.  I've been
lobbying for safer sex workshops for het men.  (There
are currently such workshops for gay and bi men, for
het and bi women, and for lesbians and bi women.  The
latter two groups were only recently separated - the
director had earlier claimed that, while het men would
not sit through a workshop with gay men, het women
would have no problem being with lesbians.  I argued
sexism - I know of no indications that men are more or
less homophobic than women.)

We're still trying to get them to work with straight
men.  I'd appreciate any input from such men - I think
there's something fundamentally wrong with ignoring
them.

Sorry for the rant, but the tendency of some people
to group women-and-children gets to me.  

Susan
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: lively@speshr.enet.dec.com
Subject: Massachusetts (PAV) People Against Violence - needs assistance....
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: 24 JUL 92 11:11:34 EST



	Request for Donations....  help is needed....

	My niece has recently started up a shelter for battered women
	and children in Massachusetts called People Against Violence 
	(PAV), P.O. Box 756, Hudson, MA 01749.  The Marlboro/Hudson
	Enterprise did a story on PAV, and the article should be in
	today's paper (7/24/92)

	It's servicing a number of towns in the area.  In starting-up they 
	are starting-out with nothing except a lot of people needing help 
	and have only limited resources.

	If you have any questions about what they need, my niece Brigette 
	who is Executive Director of PAV can be reached at 508-562-0762 
	(it's a 24 hour hot-line).  

	However to get tax write-off for money donations it must go though 
	the Sudbury address below 'Victim Advocacy Network', and ask for Gail.

	PAV is in great need of anything at this point (money, diapers,
	baby formula, a freezer, answering machine, printer to make copies,
	a computer, a car, food donations (since they do not have a freezer
	as yet only items that will not spoil for now), office equipment 
	and supplies, file cabinet, clothes/all-sizes, beds, bureaus, curtains, 
	bedding, pillows, dishes, pots/pans, etc, volunteers, client advocates,
	professional counselors, they need everything).  They will send you 
	a receipt for your tax purposes for donations.

	Monetary Donations should go to:		
		Victim Advocacy Network
		615 Boston Post Road
		Sudbury MA  01776
		508-443-9750
		Donation for PAV

		Please write on the check, or in your correspondence
		that the donation is for People Against Violence (PAV).

		If you are donating money and would like it to go for 
		a specific purpose please indciate this also (diapers,
		clothing, rents, etc).  If your company participates 
		in a match gift program this will also help them.

	Donations other than money can go though either Victim Advocacy
	Network or PAV (People Against Violence), however PAV currently
	does not always have the means to pick up donations.  If you need
	things picked try Gail first at Victim Advocacy Network. 

	Thank you in advance for any assistance.

Newsgroups: soc.women
From: kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall)
Subject: Re: A question about NOW
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 17:28:43 GMT

In article <10002@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul) writes:
>In article <l79c9dINNoh1@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> falk@peregrine.Sun.COM (Ed Falk)  
>writes:
>+ In article <9965@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)  
>writes:
>+ >In article <l721kaINN6es@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> falk@peregrine.Sun.COM (Ed  
>Falk)  
>+ >writes:
>+ >+ 
>+ >+ Because they don't have any money?
>+ >
>+ >Well, I haven't heard that they do/don't, but such an explaination
>+ >is species when they can and do throw money into politics.
>+ 
>+ I knew the New York State lobbiest for N.O.W. about 12 years ago.
>+ She was paid a wopping $6000/year for her lobbying activities.  (She
>+ found temp work while the legislature was on vacation to survive.)
>+ If this is your idea of "throwing money into politics", I'd hate to
>+ see your idea of poverty.
>
>But they aren't *investing* in potential *future* members. Well educated,
>intelligent, and most importantly, *indebted* to NOW, women. Besides, that
>was 12 years ago. What's the going rate these days?
>
>+ Where do you think they get all the money you think they have?  Do
>+ you think they get fat grants from Exxon or something?
>
>No. How much do *you* donate??? How about the rest of their membership?
>Even a couple of dollars a piece a *year* to be set aside to fund grants
>wouldn't be *that* big a hardship, would it? 
>
>Which is more important: making a temporary political gain or making a
>better future for the people that will become NOW's lifeblood within the
>next 20 years? 
>
>K'Char

 What is important to me is that they do what they say they'll do - 
 which is pushing for legislative changes and holding our elected
 officials accountable.

 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.
   
 Janice Kendall    kendall@adobe.com    ...!{decwrl|sun}!adobe!kendall

        "Giving power and money to the government is like giving 
         whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."  

		- P.J. O'Rourke, former gulf war correspondant, summing
		up what he learned during two years of research on how
		our government functions.

 
Xref: sparky soc.women:14364 soc.men:13924 soc.couples:3512
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,soc.couples
Subject: Re: Father Fixation
Date: 30 Jul 1992 20:15:56 GMT
Organization: Rama-lama-ding-dong
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

In article <1992Jul29.233824.1450@ultra.com> rajiv@ultra.com (Rajiv Dhingra) writes:
 
My marriage is going through a trying time and I  am  writing  to
this newsgroup for some advice.
 
One of the main problems that I have with my wife is her  "father
fixation".  Let me explain.  My wife is extremely attached to her

Rajiv:

Here's my two cents:

  It would probably be helpful to get some counseling; this may
  ease your burden somewhat and allow you to cope with what lies
  ahead.

  Additionally, if you can get your wife to go with you, that 
  would be great also, but for your own sanity, I think you
  need a real, unbiased person to help out.

  Dano
From: deannab@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Deanna Bergstrom)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Re: Hillary Clinton - Family Values?
Date: 22 Jul 92 16:55:26 GMT
Organization: HP Santa Rosa Site (NMD MTA MWTD)


 Jennifer Brown <JLB155@psuvm.psu.edu> writes: 

In article <1992Jul21.182938.7985@athena.cs.uga.edu>, heath@athena.cs.uga.edu
(Terrance Heath) says:
>
>          For example, a child who is sexually or otherwise abused
>might exercise her right to divorce her parents. At least this way the
>child has a say in her own life.

So (back to a common subject), why can't the parents divorce their
children??  Oh, I guess they're not allowed to have a say in their
own life.

-Jennifer

PS.  Child(ren) means after birth.  No abortion.

----------

This is quite possible.  It's called "giving up your child for adoption"
or "relinquishing parental rights".

-Deanna
From: stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Date: 28 Jul 92 22:26:08 GMT
Distribution: na

In article <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.

So one should have the choice in the matter, and the other should just  
prepare to cough up $$$'s should the first choose to become a momma?

Look, I've been told "if you don't want offspring, don't have sex". I
think the same advice should apply to women as well.

K'Char
Xref: sparky soc.women:14028 soc.men:13646