HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gerg@netcom.com (Greg Andrews)
Subject: Re: Pre-Sex Contract
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 06:06:37 GMT

Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>bob@netcom.com (Bob Becker) writes...
>>rohwerwd@netcom.com (Mr. Tickle Monster) writes:
>>>
>>>     Here is some more arguments for my point of view.
>>
>>GET A CLUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>I am starting to notice something of a flaming rivalry among the folks at
>Netcom... If so, could you people please keep your flames in the local
>newsgroups?
>

Well, I have to admit my first reaction was "Oh, shut up!"

But that's what you were expecting, wasn't it?  

Tell me, Will, I've known a bunch of people named Will, William, and
Bill.  Should I generalize about what you're like based on the way
some of them behave?

-- 
:::::::::::::::::::  Greg Andrews  gerg@netcom.com  :::::::::::::::::::
ObDrieux:  MODERN PROBLEMS: Hi Diddle Diddle, The Cat and the Fiddle,
			    The Cow Blew Up on the Launching Pad
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Xref: sparky soc.men:22374 alt.feminism:6918
From: michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Mysogynist Bullshit
Date: 8 Jan 93 07:25:03 GMT
Organization: University of Washington
NNTP-Posting-Host: glia.biostr.washington.edu

In <1993Jan6.205357.1745@msc.cornell.edu> hillyard@lynx.msc.cornell.edu.UUCP (Sean Edward Hillyard,F7 Clark,50649,) writes:

>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.

She and many others may or may not want their input into policy.  In
the end, it comes down to what Clinton (the man we elected) decides.
He told us what he believes and what his policy is and we interpret
that as best we can from any politician (which is often illusive at
best).  I don't see that his wife's desires or beliefs are an issue.
The issue is the man we elected.

    Michael Stanley (michael@gla.biosr.washington.edu)
From: pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Mysogynist Bullshit
Date: 6 Jan 93 23:43:36 GMT
Organization: Trivializers R Us

In article <1993Jan6.135027.1400@hemlock.cray.com> acp@cray.com (Anthony Peterson) writes:
>In article <1993Jan6.185235.21660@llyene.jpl.nasa.gov> julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas) writes:
>>In article <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:
>>>>Until recently, standard medical knowledge was that women were at 
>>>>extremely low risk for heart attacks and heart disease.  This is now 
>>>>known to be untrue.  
>>>
>>>I think it might me more accurate to say 'this has changed' than to
>>>say "This is now known to be untrue".
>>
>>Well if the first theory was that women were at low risk for heart
>>disease and the current theory, backed up with much more research,
>>is that woman are at risk for heart disease, I would say that 
>>theory #1 is untrue.  To make a comparison that will surely get
>>me flamed:  we know that the planets orbit the sun.  Do we say
>>that the earthcentric solar system model is incorrect or "has changed"?
>
>	Bad analogy. As for the solar system, the early theory was
>	never true while the earlier risk factor theory was true at
>	one time. 

The point is that because of lousy diagnosis and lack of studies
it is not clear whether the belief that women were at one time at
very low risk for heart disease had a basis in fact or not. Current
studies indicate that doctors are not diagnosing (or at least not
treating) heart ailments as agressively in women as in men. If
we extrapolate that information to the past, it means that historical
figures for the incidence of heart disease in women are questionable.

paul
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
From: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Subject: Re: Mysogynist Bullshit
Originator: hillyard@tiger.msc.cornell.edu
Reply-To: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell-Materials-Science-Center
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 22:38:35 GMT


I wasn't going to post anymore, but I just couldn't pass this one up.

From article <michael.726609978@glia>, by michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael):
> In <1993Jan8.231725.20294@msc.cornell.edu> hillyard@msc.cornell.edu writes:
>>From article <michael.726528708@glia>, by michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael):
>>> In <1993Jan8.085654.6101@msc.cornell.edu> hillyard@msc.cornell.edu writes:
[...]
>>> 
>>>>Might be farfetched (not too far I don't think), but I personally am not 
>>>>constructing much.
>>> 
>>> Getting defensive?  I didn't even say you constructed anything.  I said
>>> someone did.  However, defensiveness aside, the whole point is stretching
>>> it, so I ask you again...  Don't you think you are stretching things?
>>> (Don't worry, I won't laugh this time...  I'm too bored).
>
>>As above; not too far fetched.  Perhaps if you read what I write you would
>>get less bored.
> 
> Oh my, now he claims to be aware of what I read and what I don't read.
> I think we are *REALLY* stretching it now. :)
> 

Sorry, I didn't realize it could be a comprehension problem.  Here, I'll
help you out.

_______________________________
Edited to help Michael understand why I might think he didn't read
what I wrote.

>>>>Might be farfetched (not too far I don't think), 

>>>it, so I ask you again... Don't you think you are stretching things?

>>As above; not too far fetched.

SEH
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
From: pepke@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Date: 11 Jan 93 22:56:52 GMT
Reply-To: pepke@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Organization: Florida State University, but I don't speak for them

Stuff deleted.

In article <C0MC89.MH8@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
> I write:
>| May I suggest that you occasionally take a break from your usual practice of
>| only dealing with the most superficial interpretation of an opponent's 
>| argument?  It really is tiresome.
>
>Would you care to give me the deep interpretation of that
>argument, then? 

Your question, as rhetoric, is reasonably skillful but not stellar.  Because
I am not interested in playing the rhetoric today, I will give you a straight
answer.

The thesis is that longevity differences between the sexes are significantly
related to social constructions.  Supporting evidence includes the fact that 
longevity per se is significantly related to social constructions such 
as wars, gang violence, industrial accidents, medical care, etc.  

I would be glad to argue this if you are interested.  However, I am not 
interested in playing "In Not/Is Too."  If you want to play that, there
exist opponents more suited to your style than I.

-EMP
Xref: sparky soc.men:22286 alt.feminism:6880
From: quilty@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Humberto Humbertoldi)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Mysogynist Bullshit
Date: 6 Jan 1993 16:47:29 -0500
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
NNTP-Posting-Host: titan.ucc.umass.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?

Stop inviting her to cabinet meetings? She is, after all, only there
by his invitation. Divorce her? I'm pretty sure they have no-fault
divorce in D.C.  Not listen to her advise? I really don't see any
disanalogy between Clinton's (Bill, that is) cabinet giving him
advise, and his wife doing so.  What I really worry about is Benson
giving Clinton advise -- and it is not going to be politically
feasable to get rid of such a high stature cabinet member once the
appointment is made.
	Besides, Hillary seems like she would be a better president
than Bill, anyway.
-- 
    _/_/_/_/ THIS MESSAGE WAS BROUGHT TO YOU BY: Postmodern Enterprises _/_/_/ 
   _/_/      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  _/_/ 
  _/_/  The opinions expressed here must be those of my employer...     _/_/ 
 _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ Surely you don't think that *I* believe them!  _/_/ 
Xref: sparky soc.men:22453 alt.feminism:6983
From: michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Mysogynist Bullshit
Date: 9 Jan 93 20:16:35 GMT
Organization: University of Washington
NNTP-Posting-Host: glia.biostr.washington.edu

In <1993Jan9.155357.22287@nmsu.edu> dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg) writes:
>In article <1993Jan7.213435.29314@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com
>(Robert Sheaffer) writes: 
>>
>>Don't worry. This was one of the "predictions" for 1993 made by one of the
>>"psychics" in the _National Enquirer_: Bill and Hillary to split!!!
>>
>>And since the track record of these "predictions" is essentially zero,
>>we can be reasonably sure that it WON'T happen. Like that "George
>>Bush landslide" predicted last year!

> No we can't Robert.  I don't see how the fact that a psychic predicts
>something makes it less likely to happen.  Unless of course you
>actually DO believe in psychic powers.  After all, if your above
>paragraph was true, all we'd have to do is ask the National Enquirer
>to print stock market predictions.  Do the opposite, and we'd get
>rich...

Well god forbid I should have to defend Robert (*grin*), but his statement
was obviously (at least to me) a joke.  So to tell him it isn't true is
kind of redundant.  I think he already knows it. :)

    Michael Stanley (michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: "Reverse" Discrimination (was Re: Mysogynist Bullshit)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 19:17:24 GMT

In article <michael.726527935@glia> michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael) writes:
>In <C0Iwru.nI@cs.mcgill.ca> chuckies@cs.mcgill.ca (Charles J. Savoie) writes:
>
>>1) Somewhere in the average person's head is a pattern of synapses which
>>   equates: SEXISM = BAD.  Put "reverse" in front of it and you get:
>>   		reverse(SEXISM) = reverse(BAD)
>>				= GOOD
>>   I'm not suggesting that people actually think this way... but I'm
>>   almost certain that by putting "reverse" in front of a Bad Thing(tm),
>>   you make the "reverse" thing seem at least "not as bad", perhaps
>>   on a subconscious level...  Just a thought.
>
>Interesting thought, but there is an error in the math.

This is a linguistic, perceptual problem, not a math problem. I think
that Charles J. Savoie has the right of it.
 
>	 Let SEXISM = BAD
>	 Note the fact that: reverse(SEXISM) = SEXISM
>	      so:  reverse(SEXISM) = SEXISM
>				   = BAD
>
>The only problem is that if one applies affirmative action to combat
>discrimination, it must be noted that this is a long term solution.

It is not a solution at all. It not only does nothing to prevent
discrimination, it -actively- requires it, with penalties for non-compliance.

>In the short term some reverse discrimination could happen.  However
>if we look at the discrimination occurring for both sexes, and the
>total is reduced, then I can live with it.  

The total is in fact increased, but the results are more PC. 

>                                              Also if it leads to a
>future with less sexual discrimination, then I'm even satisfied with
>it.

I think you are deluding yourself.
 
>    Michael Stanley (michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu)


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Xref: sparky soc.men:22510 alt.abortion.inequity:6386 alt.feminism:7024
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Privacy -- and Waiting Periods for Men
Date: 11 Jan 1993 06:03:59 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

>Are you against *effective* hindrances to abortion?  That is,
>do you support the Supreme Court's view that certain things
>like spousal notification may effectively be a burden, even though 
>in theory they are not, and certainly are not in all cases?

My opposition to spousal notification does not stem from the 
concept of "undue burden".  It stems from a concept of privacy
of a woman's medical records.

>Your suggestion that a man should search all birth records in every 
>city in the world in order to verify he's not a father, coupled with
>your opinion that a woman should be freely able to hide a pregnancy
>and surprise a man with a suit if or when she desires,  seem to me 
>to be very effective and unequal burdens on men.  

I doubt most men would be sufficiently irresponsible to be in the
position of searching birth records.  Does you experience suggest
otherwise?

>What, you don't like an abortion law requiring spousal notification?  
>As I recall, the wife took her vow "for better or for worse."  Where 
>was the clause that said her husband has no right to know about his 
>unborn children?

Marriage does not obligate a woman to bear children.  Nor to share
her medical records.  (Neither are men so obliged.)

-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
From: x73rl@ll.mit.edu ( Rick LaFave)
Subject: Re: Mysogynist Bullshit
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 20:32:00 GMT

In article; <726215828@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit);

|And I say that women get top priority, and feminists claim that
|women should get even more on a regular basis. 

Geez...  I wish I could get more, on a regular basis!
 
Sorry... couldn't resist!  ;-)
Xref: sparky soc.men:22350 alt.feminism:6904
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Mysogynist Bullshit
Date: 7 Jan 93 21:34:35 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1993Jan7.013255.6170@msc.cornell.edu> hillyard@msc.cornell.edu writes:
>As far as a divorce, I'm not sure I would like the president of the United 
>States to be having marital problems while in office--although who get
>custody and the division of property would probably be of great interest to
>the net.

Don't worry. This was one of the "predictions" for 1993 made by one of the
"psychics" in the _National Enquirer_: Bill and Hillary to split!!!

And since the track record of these "predictions" is essentially zero,
we can be reasonably sure that it WON'T happen. Like that "George
Bush landslide" predicted last year!

(Besides: if YOU were Hillary, would you give up *that much* power,
even if you really didn't like the guy? So wait until he's "former
President Clinton." Of course, HE might decide to divorce her, but
again that's impolitic, hence unlikely; the world contains MANY
Gennifer Flowers!)
-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!


     "Mystical explanations are considered deep. The truth is that
      they are not even superficial."

                   - Friedrich Nietzsche    (The Gay Science: 126)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.atheism,alt.sex.wizards
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: A few facts about circumcision
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 17:46:16 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.103215.25393@nwnexus.WA.COM> pcrayne@halcyon.com (Peter C. Crayne) writes:
>In article <1993Jan6.053049.16500@netcom.com> lile@netcom.com (Lile Elam) writes:
>>Reminds me of a Dr. Zeus story about the creatures who had stars
>>on their stumics and the ones that didn't. They were the same 
>>except for the stars but they treated each other as if they were
>>from different planets.
>
>Ah, you mean the Star-bellied Sneeches! In the book, a salesman came
>around with a machine that could add or remove stars from sneeches'
>bellies. The non-starred sneeches all had stars added. The Original
>starred sneeches then had thiers removed in order to distinguish them
>from the lowly sneeches. This goes on and on until none of them remember
>what they started out as.
>This seems a tad unlikely for circumcisions. :-)
>
You mean you haven't heard?
Well, what you need is the new Ronco ForeKin-O-Matic!
It slices, dices, purees, glues and re-grows.
And not only that, but you get a *free* one year supply of replacement
foreskins!
How much would you pay for that?
But wait!
If you order now, you'll get a *free* bonus gift!
Yes, you'll receive a set of Ginsu nose hair removers absolutely free!


--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
From: mgsail@prefect.cc.bellcore.com (goldstein,marvin)
Subject: Best Divorce Lawyer in New Jersey
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Distribution: NJ
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 17:44:03 GMT

Can anyone supply the name and number of the best divorce attorney, wrt men,
in New Jersey?  I need a second opinion on an appeal.  Thanks.

MG  
Xref: sparky soc.men:22476 alt.feminism:6994 talk.abortion:54981
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism,talk.abortion
Subject: Feminists "analysis" of men (Was Re: Double standards )
Date: 10 Jan 93 05:36:05 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: Living In Harmony

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 the sacrament."

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.

Knowing all those facts, do you believe that
"If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament"?
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Mysogynist Bullshit
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 15:37:13 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.145904.7404@nmsu.edu> dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg) writes:
>In article <1993Jan11.055947.4937@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan9.155357.22287@nmsu.edu> dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg) writes:
>>>In article <1993Jan7.213435.29314@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com
>>>(Robert Sheaffer) writes: 
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Don't worry. This was one of the "predictions" for 1993 made by one of the
>>>>"psychics" in the _National Enquirer_: Bill and Hillary to split!!!
>>>>
>>>>And since the track record of these "predictions" is essentially zero,
>>>>we can be reasonably sure that it WON'T happen. Like that "George
>>>>Bush landslide" predicted last year!
>>>
>>> No we can't Robert.  I don't see how the fact that a psychic predicts
>>>something makes it less likely to happen.  
>>
>>If most of their predictions do not, in fact, happen, then I suspect that
>>it would follow. And their hit rate is not anything to brag about. No
>>psychic powers needed, reality is far too complex for random guesses to
>>work most of the time.
>
>What my point was is that the truth value of a statement much be
>determined seperately from the identity of who is saying it.  

I disagree, if Van Daniken started publishing scientific theorems,
he would not be taken seriously, and for good reason. If a source proves
reliable, I would consider the information. But if the source is -known-
to be unreliable, it is a waste of time and resources to repeatedly
check everything out. 

>No matter how many psychics predicted that the Eagles would not win the
>superbowl, they still lost yesterday (sniff)...
> 
>       (my argument deleted)
>>
>>It has already been pointed out that this was either a joke or sarcasm.
>> 
>
>o.k., whatever...
>
>>
>>Rich
>>
>>payner@netcom.com
>-David "ZZYZX" Steinberg- King of the ellipses
>       (dsteinbe@emmy.nmsu.edu)

Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
From: krw@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (keith.r.smith)
Subject: Men buying fhp's (was Re: How Strong ......)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 21:11:18 GMT

In article <93005.151253ROPERK@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> K. Roper <ROPERK@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>
>  Strong enough to buy feminine hygene products when I ask him,
>    and to ask enough questions to ensure that he buys the
>    right things.
>
>  Kim

I saw a comic on HBO do a bit about men being uncomfortable with purchasing
feminine hygeine proucts.  His point of view:

"Do ya' think the folx at the counter are gonna' think they're for you?"

"When _I_ go to buy fhp's, I walk right up to the counter with my head
held high.  It's just like advertising; I-GOT-A-WOMAAAAN!"

Keith R
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.feminism
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Reproductive Technologies... (was: Re: Father Notification...)
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 16:56:46 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.014146.4179@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>[ who want, who gets custody ]
>nadel@attatash.aero.org (Miriam Nadel) writes:
>| It seems to me that there's a problem with anything one quotes.  It would
>| not surprise me if a number of men who want custody don't pursue it because
>| they don't think they have a chance.  
>| 
>| Any statistics on the subject are skewed by self-fulfilling prophecy.  While
>| 78% of men who seek sole custody get it (and 82% of women who seek sole
>| custody succees) this doesn't answer the question of what people want and
>| who would have gotten custody in an actual dispute.
>
>It strikes me as kind of odd that men are pessimistic about
>their likelihood of success when the batting average of their
>kind of person is .780.

Stipulating for a moment that these stats are accurate...

A simple explanation is that the men who actually seek custody
are a small subset who have a good chance of getting it
(eg., provably violent/drug-abusing/negligent/etc mother).

The men who face equally qualified women will avoid trying, because
the playing field is clearly tilted.  This would make a lot of people
think that these men don't *want* custody.  So the general split
becomes 82-18 instead of 51-49.

In other words, the "game" is so unfair that only the supermen will play 
-- making it look like any man could win, if he just had the desire.

Nothing "odd" about it.  Unless you think women in the 1930's 
(or 1950's or 1990's) didn't seek jobs because they didn't want them.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism