HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: slaury@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Susan Laury)
Subject: Re: Feminists ignore Cosmetics?
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 22:28:08 GMT

In article <3SEP199200564638@vaxa.weeg.uiowa.edu> sklautky@vaxa.weeg.uiowa.edu (Stephen Klautky) writes:
>So, I have a question for you feminist or feminist-leaning
>women.  Are you bothered that a man appreciates the look of a
>woman in makeup better than without makeup?
>
>
>-=] Steve [=-     SKLAUTKY@VAXA.WEEG.UIOWA.EDU
>


I'm not terribly bothered by this. ... I don't think a woman (or a man)
should be "judged" by how they look or choose to present themselves.
But, a man's preferences are just that. And so are mine. I may
think you look better in a suit and tie than in sweats, or better
in blue than in red. Whether I pressure you to wear one or the
other, or decide how I feel about you based on what you wear is
another question entirely.


Sus.
-- 
And the speaking will get easier and easier. ... And at last you'll know with
surpassing certainty that only one thing is more frightening than speaking
your truth. And that is not speaking.
		--Naomi Wolf, Commencement Address, Scripps College
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician)
Subject: Re: The poor duchess
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 07:51:08 GMT
Organization: Society for the Preservation of E. coli

In article <3540@unisql.UUCP> wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie) writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.162424.645@cs.mcgill.ca> samurai@uriel.cs.mgill.ca writes:
>>Because she's the Duchess of York.

>	Well, maybe I'm missing something but don't Duchesses have the right
>to dress as they please?  I always thought royalty was *more* privileged
>than us mere commoners...

Well, like any "privileged/non-privileged" scenario, privilege comes
with a price.

The Royal Family is held to a higher standard than mere commoners.

-- 
Brian Evans                |     "Bad mood, bad mood...Sure I'm in a bad mood!
bevans@carina.unm.edu      |      I haven't had sex...*EVER!*" -- Virgin Mary
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz)
Subject: Re: Some Politically Incorrect questions
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 17:34:31 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.092637.24222@leland.Stanford.EDU>
farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:

>So, your problem is finding a group of women who make enough to 
>"allow" their husbands that choice?

That's one problem.  A more fundamental reason is women's attitudes and
expectations about gender roles.  Few women who are in a position to
choose would consent to a marriage in which they are sole breadwinner
(unlike men).

>If you're looking at stats from 50 women and 10,000 men, it's 
>not significant that so few (or even none) of the women have 
>stay-at-home husbands.

Is this a joke?  Do you think such a study would pass peer review?  The
one I quoted was a random sample of 2041 M.D.s, 1159 female and 882
male.  I'd suggest you read the paper before concluding that its sample
size is too small.

>Find a high-paying profession where men and 
>women are in the same percentages and a survey on them would be 
>telling.

Yep.  Just as telling as a survey of a profession where they aren't in
the same percentages.  You haven't provided any reason to believe
otherwise.

>Also the age of the people being surveyed is important.  
>Since most female physicians are young, it's important to compare men 
>and women at the same ages.  Otherwise, the older, more traditional 
>male physicians will skew the stats for the men.

That comparison was done for a the physician data, with the same
result: when age is controlled, the difference is still very highly
significant.  Men are sole wage-earner far more often than women.

There are also numerous other psychological studies and
attitude/expectation surveys of the general population that corroborate
this result.  For example, a recent study of girls aged 13-18 found
that 80% expect/hope to be married, with children, and supported solely
by the husband by age 28.  Boys, on the other hand, expect to be
married, with children, and primary or sole wage-earner.  These
traditional expectations still predominate, and seem to be largely
independent of economic status and academic achievement.

-S. Schultz
Xref: sparky soc.men:15562 alt.config:5344
From: mrmike@michelotti.ae.ge.com ("Mr. Mike" Passaretti)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.config
Subject: Re: Alt.feminism
Date: 27 Aug 92 22:40:20 GMT
	<17gkuuINNa0q@agate.berkeley.edu>
Reply-To: Mike Passaretti <passaretti@crd.ge.com>
Organization: GE Aircraft Engines


# In message <17gkuuINNa0q@agate.berkeley.edu>, 
# jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes:

jym> =o= There are several moderators for soc.feminism, and
jym> they are a diverse group.  In instances where a moderator
jym> -- let's call her Moderator A -- enters into the debate,
jym> her article is submitted for approval by the other
jym> moderators.  And yes, some of these articles have
jym> actually been rejected by the other moderators.  If
jym> somebody posts something disagreeing with what Moderator
jym> A has posted, Moderator A does not have the authority to
jym> reject it.  Again, you can verify that this is going on
jym> by reading messages in the newsgroup.

Perhaps, then, you can explain this:
From: tittle@alexandre-dumas.ics.uci.edu (Cindy Tittle Moore)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Preventing Female Children - in India
Date: 27 Aug 92 19:34:25 GMT

I will be the first to go out on a limb here and note that of
all the s.f moderators, CTM is the only one who I have noted
approving her own posts, but she does it quite often.  I
cannot, in fact, recall a message of hers in the last 2 months
which she did _not_ approve.

jym> =o= You could have found this out yourself if you had had the
jym> simple courtesy to ask the moderators about their policies
jym> before posting your criticisms of those policies.  Indeed,
jym> you could have figured this out yourself by paying attention
jym> to the articles in soc.feminism.  As it stands, you just
jym> flamed in ignorance.  You owe an apology to the moderators
jym> of soc.feminism for so thoroughly misrepresenting them.
jym>     <_Jym_>

You, sir, owe an apology to TJ Wood.  Ignorance, alas, is an
all too common thing.  
                                                        - MM
-- 
passaretti@crd.ge.com           {whatever}!crdgw1!copernicus!passaret
mrmike@michelotti.ae.ge.com     {whatever}!crdgw1!copernicus!michelotti!mrmike
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz)
Subject: Re: Some Politically Incorrect questions
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 00:19:04 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.200615.23173@news.nd.edu>
slarsen@beethoven.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:

>There may very well be a scarcity of women willing to take on the 
>support role, 

Hey, we agree 100%!

> [Lotsa stuff that has nothing to do with anything I ever said]

What we have here is the common Usenet phenomenon of the cognitive 
filter.  The phrase 'men who want to be primary nurturer aren't getting 
much support from women (yet),' viewed through the filter, becomes 
'women are lazy and irresponsible and force men to be their wage slaves,'
or something along those lines.

Perhaps someone who's of the same mind as this phantom opponent of
Susan's would like to respond to some of her concerns?

-S. Schultz
Xref: sparky soc.men:15381 soc.women:15669 alt.child-support:2861
From: root@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Equal Male Rights
Date: 23 Aug 92 21:54:36 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

In article <VIXIE.92Aug23121952@cognition.pa.dec.com> vixie@pa.dec.com (Paul A Vixie) writes:
>
>It is true that the strength of the "tender years doctrine" comes from the
>presumed desirability of continuity of care after the "fourth trimester".
>However, this is as it must be -- we cannot attack the roots of the tender
>years doctrine by trying to remake biology and split the care of the baby
>before it would make sense to do that.  And of course the tender-years
>camp agrees with this and sets the date at which care can reasonably be
>shared at three years or so; I on the other hand set it at three to six
>MONTHS, depending on the particular baby.

Whoa, sport.

There is absolutely no reason why shared or single-male interraction with
a child cannot commence at birth. I got up and fed my kids in the middle
of the night and also during the daylight hours. No, it wasn't formula
either. My wife was a pumper, and even if she wasn't, one of the services
that many hospitals provide is referral to sources for breast milk.

I won't get into the argument of milk v. formula, but I will add that an
awful lot of kids (now adults) tred this planet who've never tasted any-
thing but formula in their "tender years" too --and they're doing just
fine. The biggest complaint was that they put on, and retained longer,
the baby fat natural to kids. But that wasn't restricted to kids who
were raised at the ouitset by dads --all babies who're formula fed do
this.

There are more than a few dads who've become single-parents immediately
at their child's birth --for a variety of reasons-- and these kids have
sone well in their journey to adulthood. There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING a
baby needs that it MUST get from it's mother.

I take *great* exception to the statement you just made. The age for
realistic joint custody is measured in seconds, not days, weeks or even
months.

-- 
root@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA
Xref: sparky soc.men:15604 soc.women:15896 soc.couples:3712
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Friday, 28 Aug 1992 12:45:29 EDT
From: K. Roper <ROPERK@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,soc.couples
Subject: Re: Love love can turn Jekylls into Hydes
 <68kA02Yd1f2u01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>
 <1992Aug26.010556.8707@midway.uchicago.edu>

 Seen on a button at a science fiction convention:

    "If it wasn't for lawyers, we wouldn't need them."



 Kim
From: boserj@netcom.com (Jeffrey Boser)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Adults, Children and sex
Date: 1 Sep 92 22:29:15 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:
>( Tom Chapin ) writes:
> If those who were not scarred were to give up sex, would that heal
> those who were scarred?  If men who are not rapists were to give up
> sex with women, would their sacrifice protect women from rape?  No,
> because the problem is not the sexual activity, but the coercion
> used to get it. 
>
>This ignores the fact that older adults/younger children
>sex is not a basic human need.
>Dano

It does not.  Sex is not a basic human need period.  On top of this,
I sure as hell wanted sex with adults when i was a younger child,
and im not a deviant.

.....jeff
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: chapin@cbnewsc.cb.att.com ( Tom Chapin )
Subject: Re: Adults, Children and sex
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 22:32:13 GMT

ljf writes:
>The problem I'm having with what you're saying is that you do seem to
>think that an adult approaching any child at any age is permissible.
>
>Perhaps if you'd be more explicit as to what you think is permissible
>you'd be better understood.

I don't know when you began following this, but I never stated or
implied at any time that any adult should ever approach a child for
sex.  I merely joined with others to give examples where adults did
in fact approach a child for sex without harm coming to the child,
in refutation of the claim that such advances are inevitably harmful,
traumatic, and coercive.  

I believe those making that false claim are promoting an unhealthy
view of sexuality which promotes the very child abuse they claim to
be opposing, by making it difficult for children to approach parents
for even the most abstract discussions of important sexual issues
without getting a guilt-laden, guilt-inducing response.

As for my own opinions regarding "what is permissable," I believe
that in any situation where a clear power differential exists and
great harm is possible for the weaker party, the weaker party should
be the one to initiate such activities.  This would mean that, if it
were genuinely true that women are inherently weak and powerless
compared to men, then women should be the ones to ask for dates...

A weakness of my position is that I tend to see fewer power
differentials than some (such as certain feminists), since the whole
purpose of society is to provide means to equalize such
differentials.  So it would, in my opinion, be difficult to
identify areas where a clear differential exists.

I also see difficulties caused by those with ostensible weakness
but genuine power to still oppress and coerce others.  I do know of
an act of rape from my childhood where two children age ten or under
raped an older teenage babysitter by threatening to make a false
accusation of child molestation against her.  Age does not
guarantee that one is an oppressor, nor is youth and physical
weakness a guarantee that one will not commit acts of coercion.

I myself can give no easy answers as to when sexuality is non-
coercive and permissible, and when it is coercive and not
permissible.  All easy categories are false, and every situation
must be judged on its merits.  

-- 
	     tom chapin                tjc@hrcce.att.com
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: boserj@netcom.com (Jeffrey Boser)
Subject: Re: Adults, Children and sex
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 00:42:39 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

rfs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (richard.f.j.soyack) writes:
>An interesting technique, and one that seems to be very
>popular these days, which is, the victimizer puts on the cloak
>of the victim.

I am not a victimizer, especially not sexually.  Though I
see no reason to provide specifics.  Richard, we are discussing
a moral and ethical issue here, and you persist in making it
a personal one.  I am not rationalizing my own desires and
impulses, I am not making excuses for others.  I have, however,
noticed some interesting aspects to sexuality.  This is why
this subject came up with in the first place.

note: the average age of models and sex objects in the public
media.  the average is a minor.  Societies definition of what
is sexually available and desirable is juvenile and getting
younger every year.

note: the amount of incest and child sex in modern erotica.
sexuality at a younger age is becoming more acceptable.

note: much of the emotional damage from child sexual abuse
comes from social opinions, not the fact itself.  look at
the damage caused afterwards, during trials, police investigations,
social workers, media exposure.

note: the power of abuse is such that it is the golden rule
of custody cases, false accusations abound, destroying
carreers and community impressions.  lives have been ruined

note: there is quite a bit of evidence of childhood sexuality
being beneficial in some cases.  many in fact.  the good
experiences are typically not revealed, due to fear of the
social repercussions.  just as abuse is alot more prevalent
than is normally considered, so are the non-abusive instances.


anyway, the point here is that this issue seriously needs some
debate.  we got a big problem here.  and saying its wrong, and
labeling those who think different from the norm as evil and
sick (as you have been doing rich) has been so ineffective
its rediculous.

this issue has been a community problem for a long time now,
and SHOWS NO SIGN OF EVER STOPPING!  rich, you are just parroting
what our laws have been saying, and you are just as effective.
meaning, you are not.

its about time we started dumping the values that are causing
this problem.  i think that some of the things that are involved
are gender roles, childhood sexuality, consent, non-sexual abuse,
as well as the patterns of abuse-repetition.

nobody here is saying they got all the answers but you rich,
most are just saying that the 'normal' answers just dont
seem to apply.  and they dont.  all the 'normal' people are
holed up in a middle-america town somewhere under lock and key.



....jeff

Newsgroups: soc.men
From: rfs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (richard.f.j.soyack)
Subject: Re: Adults, Children and sex
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 23:11:29 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.222742.13309@cbnewsc.cb.att.com> chapin@cbnewsc.cb.att.com ( Tom Chapin ) writes:
>>worry more about the effect of this on the children.
>
>Those posting on this topic have dealt with precisely this issue,
>and have unequivocably stated that they as children dealt
>with just such situations without harmful effects.  Amazing that
>people can read words and not see them.  Some women have related
>experiences of rape and noted that the men didn't seem to even hear
>their cries to stop.  We who are relating out own experiences
>are seeing (luckily in a less traumatic circumstance) just how
>such situations occur where we find ourselves dealing with someone
>who is so involved in what is going on in their own mind and
>fantasies that they simply cannot hear what we are saying.
>
>-- 
>	     tom chapin                tjc@hrcce.att.com

I would suggest that the last part of this sentence dealing
with one's own mind and fantasies deals more with those who
are arguing that sex between children and adults is good than
with those arguing that it is not good.  Cases of children
being harmed in this way abound, cases in which good comes
from it seem to come from those adults who view children as
sex objects.
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
X-To: GREG HENNESSY
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 02:29:00 GMT

gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes...
GH> In article <713120371@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
GH> #The popular choice of "just take the father to the cleaners"
GH> #will be eliminated and the woman will have to carry the financial
GH> #price of her choices.

GH> While exempting the man from carrying the financial price of HIS
GH> choices.

But Greg, what he means is that if the woman CHOOSES that she wants the child
and the father CHOOSES that he does not, then I believe that she has CHOSEN
to raise the child *alone*.

If indeed the mother had been concerned about the father's choice not to
raise the child, then she COULD have chosen not to keep the child.  A man
does not have that right, but only has, as you say "responsibilities for his
choices".  Women can abdicate their "responsibilities for their actions," but
men cannot.

Where is the inequity against women, in allowing men to ALSO *choose* not to
be a parent, since in fact women *already* have that right?

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Bad Command: (A)bort (R)etry (I)nflunce with large hammer
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: rfs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (richard.f.j.soyack)
Subject: Re: Adults, Children and sex
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 12:48:17 GMT

In article <a9gn5pl.boserj@netcom.com> boserj@netcom.com (Jeffrey Boser) writes:
>rfs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (richard.f.j.soyack) writes:
>>An interesting technique, and one that seems to be very
>>popular these days, which is, the victimizer puts on the cloak
>>of the victim.
>
>I am not a victimizer, especially not sexually.  Though I
>see no reason to provide specifics.  Richard, we are discussing
>a moral and ethical issue here, and you persist in making it
>a personal one.  I am not rationalizing my own desires and
>impulses, I am not making excuses for others.  I have, however,

If I went to a lecture on the subject of smoking related
illness, and the speaker presented what sounded like the
smoking lobby line I would ask whether the speaker was
connected to or funded by the cigarette companies.  If the
speaker told me it didn't matter, or accused me of abusing him
for asking the question, or ranted, "Stop making perverted
references to the cigarette companies," I would highly doubt
anything that speaker said on the subject.  So, I believe,
when someone wants to change laws it is important to find
out what that person has to gain by having those laws
overturned.
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz)
Subject: Re: Some Politically Incorrect questions
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 23:25:08 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.220608.28311@leland.Stanford.EDU>
farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:

>And yet 2/3 of American women between 21 and 44 work outside the home.

The question, as I recall, was whether women, given the choice, would
consent to the breadwinning role for husband and family, while allowing
the husband to be a stay-at-home father.

Now, it doesn't make much sense to ask whether women at the low end of
the income scale are in such a marriage, right?  They don't have the
economic luxury to make such a choice.  My figures were strictly from
the high end.  In other words, in the professions where women are
making more than enough to support husband and family, those doing so
are vanishingly rare.  At the same time, men at the high end -are- the
sole breadwinner most of the time.

>Unless you're suggesting that male physicians are a good group for
>women who want to stay at home to target, your stats have much more to
>do with the male-dominated profession of medicine than husbands in
>general.

What does male dominance of the profession have to do with women's
choice of mate?  Do you mean to imply that female M.D.s don't make a
family wage?

-S. Schultz
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: boserj@netcom.com (Jeffrey Boser)
Subject: Re: Adults, Children and sex
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 92 01:49:16 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:
>Tom Chapin writes:
> I came up with a helluva lot more intense ideas than that before
> I was four...  I was masturbating from age three
>
>Mr. Chapin and jeff (who says he masturbated at least daily since age
>10) seem to have matured early.

I have.  And I did not mature early.  Many children are very sexual.
We are far from abnormal or uncommon.

>This though, sort of takes the cake:
>  and I sure as hell was not molested
>  by any adult no matter how many fantasies I had about it.
>And Mr. Chapin wonders why anyone would question his motivation
>in making it easier for adults and children to have sex?
>
>Dano

Actually I dont recall anybody attempting to make it easier.

I just recall arguments saying that many experiences that people
have had were not harmful.  And comdemning them was causing
more harm than good.

I knew a girl who, at age 17, came on to a chaperone that was age
25, and they had sex.  The two of them, despite loving each other,
are terrified that anybody will find out, because her parents will
ruin the guy's life.

....jeff

Newsgroups: soc.men