HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: soc.women

> / hpcc01:soc.women / lundquis@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Jill Lundquist) /  3:15 pm  Mar 31, 1992 /
> In article <5310003@hpcc01.corp.hp.com> radzy@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Lynne Radzykewycz) writes:
> [the discussion is about ways to minimize menstrual cramps]
> >
> >Then at a regular exam years ago, I remarked to yet another doctor
> >that I was still having problems with cramps and he suggested that we
> >deal with the cause, not the symptom.  He prescribed Naprosyn, a 
> >muscle relaxant, not a pain killer.  To me, it's a wonder drug.  
> 
> Interesting that Naprosyn worked for you and ibuprofen worked for me.
> They are related drugs, both anti-inflammatories.  I had never heard
> that Naprosyn was a muscle relaxant.  I wouldn't even be surprised
> if they were closely related, since they were prescribed interchangably
> for me when I was in constant pain for tendonitis.  


It took me a while to get my hands on a PDR (Physician's Desk Reference
for drugs) to verify this.  You are right, Naprosyn itself is not a
muscle relaxant, but one of its effects is to reduce prostaglandin
synthesis whereby muscle relaxation takes place.  

From the PDR:

    Naprosyn is an orally administered nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory
    drug with analgesic and antipyretic properties.

    Naprosyn is indicated for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis,
    osteoarthritis, juvenile arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis,
    tendinitis and bursitis, and acute gout.  It is also indicated in
    the relief of mild to moderate pain, and for the treatment of
    primary dysmenorrhea.

    In dysmenorrheic patients, the drug reduces the level of
    prostaglandins in the uterus, which correlates with a reduction
    in the frequency and severity of uterine contractions. 

        [My notes for those not up on medical lingo:      ]
	[           analgesic      -> pain reducing       ]
	[	    antipyretic    -> fever reducing      ]
	[	    dysmenorrhea   -> painful menstruation]
        [           prostaglandins -> hormones            ]

Ibuprofen is also anti-inflammatory, but I don't think it has this 
additional effect of inhibiting prostaglandin synthesis.

> Ibuprofen is also cheaper, especially
> if you buy generic instead of Advil or Motrin or whatever.

Since I need only 1-2 pills a month and have medical coverage at work, 
my prescription of Naprosyn costs me about $6.00 a year. 

Lynne Radzykewycz
From: mikep@hpmwtd.HP.COM (Mike Powell)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: abortion is a women's issue
Date: 17 Apr 92 04:10:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: hpmwmat.32620022
Organization: HP Santa Rosa Site (NMD MTA MWTD). - Santa Rosa, Ca.


Paul:

	It seems clear to me that Keneth chose his words carefully,
	in order to make a point (which I got, and perhaps you didn't).

Carol:
	Your statement is thoughtless.  It tells me that you hold a
	very narrow perspective on the abortion issue (IMHO).  Sorry
	about being so direct.... 

All:
	C'mon folks....  Abortion is NOT about "unwanted pregnancies".

	I know the phrase is ingrained in society, but if you think about
	it, you will realize that ALL PREGNANCIES ARE UNWANTED!!!!!

	Seriously!

	Do you know of any woman that LIKES being pregnant?  Do women
	really ENJOY getting larger, heavier, and experience sometimes
	severe discomfort?  Do women really WANT their bodies to
	undergo such dramatic changes, and even put themselves at
	risk in the process?????

	Again, all pregnancies are unwanted....  

	What abortion is about is simply this.  Unwanted children.

	It is just the the abortion is a SOULUTION to the problem
	of unwanted childern, that is carried out during pregnancy.  That
	is the reason for the confusion.

	But since the real problem is unwanted children, with the parties
	being the parents (mother & father) and the child....  it should
	be clear to even the most casual observer that BOTH parents
	have reason to consider if a child is 'wanted' or not.

	ABORTION IS A METHOD TO ADDRESS THIS PROBLEM FOR **BOTH** PARENTS!
	It is just that as a medical procedure, it must be _performed_
	on the woman.....  (see God about the reason behind this one...)

	Why would a prospective parent NOT WANT to have a child?  Well,
	a parent might not have the resources ($$$, time, etc...) to
	properly care for the child.  The parent might have needs or
	desires to pursue a path in their life (like getting a degree, or
	visiting all corners of the earth, etc...) that the addition of
	a child would put an end to.  The child might be an embarassment
	in the sense the parents sexual activity leading to the pregnancy
	is not acceptable socially or morally (as in teen pregnancies, 
	sexual realtions with members of ones family, adultery, rape, etc.)
	The parents might feel that they do not have the skills or ability
	to care for a child....  etc. etc...  

	The list goes on and on....   but notice something?  These reasons
	are ALL GENDER NEUTRAL....   they affect both the mother AND the
	father....

	So for anyone who lives in some fantasy world and doesn't believe
	that the issue of abortion and abortion rights have anything to
	do with the father....  

	Get a clue.  Climb down and join humanity.

	We're all in this together.


	-Mike-
From: desj@idacrd.UUCP (David desJardins)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Older men and younger women (advice needed)
Date: 16 Apr 92 21:30:06 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: IDA Center for Communications Research

In article <rtkc8INNgao@agate.berkeley.edu> epg@nature.berkeley.edu writes:
>Why would a man not want to date a woman who is considerably younger
>than he is?

Of course there are the obvious reasons having to do with similarity
of life experience.  An older person might feel that he or she has
gone through certain phases of their life and learned some things and
would feel more comfortable with someone who has had similar
experiences.  This applies equally whether the man or the woman is
older.

In the specific case of an older man and a younger woman another issue
comes to mind.  Our society generally gives men power over women,
which can make it difficult to form an equal relationship.  The older
man is likely to be financially better off and generally more well-
established than the younger woman, which translates to even more
power in their relationship.  Some people at least are very concerned
about this.

					David desJardins
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts)
Subject: Re: abortion is a women's issue
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 02:25:13 GMT

In <1992Apr16.192219.16197@panix.com> pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich) writes:

>Keeripes what a bozo thing to say. First of all, the femail mailing list
>is open to both sexes; the moderation merely filters most of the clueless
>jerks. 

After reading FEMAIL for 5 months, I can say with confidence that it appears
to be what she is looking for.

>Second, *chortle* *gasp* *guffaw* you joined this group, as a man,
>to talk about (not, apparently, with) women, and, out of the goodness of
>your heart you are permitting, na, inviting women to join in your discussion.

How do you possibly contrive exclusion?  I said talk about women, placing no
restrictions what-so-ever on with whom.  I also implied the quality of
discussion could be raised by the contributions of women, which is why I
said women should be encouraged to add to the discussions.

>Right. Maybe what some women intend when they say "all men are jerks" is
>simply that even if most men aren't jerks, there are some outliers who
>kick the arithmetic mean up so far that you can't tell the difference.

Maybe feminists get such a hard rap because they have people like you
trying to defend them.  (Against what I don't know.)

Maybe if I state things again, they will sink in for you.  I see soc.women
as a group meant for discussion about women, not for the discussion of
women.  Newsgroup titles generally indicate the content of a group, not
who is allowed to post.  Second, the contributions of women can enrich the
discussion, but these contributions are not necessary for discussion, and
in the case of Carolyn, detract from the discussion.

Ken
Newsgroups: tcd.talk,soc.women,soc.men
From: btwomey@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (william.tw0mey)
Subject: Re: A rather peculiar letter.
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 18:08:41 GMT


In article <1992Mar28.214433.22533@maths.tcd.ie> mike@maths.tcd.ie (Mike Rogers) writes:
>
>In article <1992Mar27.223645.7188@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>, btwomey@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (william.tw0mey) wrote:
>>> mike@maths.tcd.ie (Mike Rogers) wrote:
>>>1)	Women's souls are so much lower than men's that they cannot administer
>>>	sacraments.
>>Wrong.  Please point out for me where this is explicitly stated. 
>>The RC Church has stupid reasons for not allowing women as
>>priests, but they are not this bad.
>
>God, this gets tiresome. The three major pillars of Roman Catholicism are
>Paul, Augustine and Aquinas, in that order. Read them.

Sigh.  Hand waving.  Is everything you offer as valuable?

Second chance:  The official line that I get is that: women are
not priests because women were not called by Jesus.  Like I said,
a stupid reason.  Now would you refute the reason I give, or 
fulfill my original request?  Where does the RC Church state that
women's souls are lower than men's, or state that it embraces
completely a teaching of Paul, Agustine or Aquinas which says as much.

Prove that it does and I will start a schism Church. 

>Mike Rogers,Box 6,Regent Hse,##EveryoneHasTheRightToFreedomOfOpinionAndExpressio

Bill Twomey

Being a cynic is fun.  But being contradictory for the sake of being
contradictory is not amusing.

-- 

bt@violin.att.com

"Sed is the assembly language of shell tools" - W. Twomey
Xref: sparky soc.women:8949 alt.child-support:1152
From: kscumm2@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Kimberly S. Cummings)
Subject: Re: LOOKING FOR NANCY @ BRANDEIS UNIV. IN WALTHAM, MA.
Reply-To: kscumm2@aplcen (Kimberly S. Cummings)
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 20:35:22 GMT

In article <1992Apr11.015300.12035@access.digex.com> deja-q@access.digex.com (Lin Yon Q) writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.045351.18869@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mikeey J. Lin) writes:
(The following has been edited extensively so as to only include
 pertinent insults!)
>>	"Look slime! Just because no women will speak to you .....
>> ..... ignorant and narrow-minded people, and I use that term 
>>loosely to include you, .......
>
>DUH!  Some sniveling little college twit ......
>... subjecting a few million people to his drivel.  Give it up
>dweebo  .....
>>
>
>Is this someone who hasn't figured out how to post all by itself yet?
>Someone in your BASIC class perhaps?  
>
>Q

"Are Not!"
"Am too!"
"No, you are!"
"No, YOU are!"
"Well, so's your mother!"
"Well, so's your sister!"
"Well, you're ugly and your momma dresses you funny."
etc.,etc.

Sorry, but after a couple of these posts, I felt myself being magically
transported back through time to my grade school playground where our 
favorite pastime was "cut-downs" and I just couldn't resist in joining
in.  :b  :)   Haven't done that in, well, at least a few years.

Kay Cee 


Newsgroups: soc.women
From: puter@no1home.nashvil.ingr.com (Software Dude)
Subject: Women
Organization: WHAT?
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 21:07:32 GMT

>> Some girls like to buy new shoes and others like driving trucks and 
>> wearing tatoos.
>
>  And some like to broadcast news, while others enjoy singing
>the "blues".
>
>  Still others like to paint in hues, while still others pound
>gavels and collect the dues!
>
>(Your turn !)
>
Uh, and some..... uh... er... like... uh.... rabbits! Yeah!

Happy Easter!
--
Puter	puter@no1home.nashvil.ingr.com "My favorite vanity plate - PHUQUE"
Newsgroups: tcd.talk,soc.women,soc.men,talk.rape,talk.abortion,rec.arts.sf.misc
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: A rather peculiar letter.
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 18:54:33 GMT

In article <1992Apr06.172500.3090@deeptht.santa-cruz.ca.us>
rstevew@deeptht.santa-cruz.ca.us (Richard Steven Walz) writes:

>I am puzzled by your sig. having pro-choice anti-Roe. These would seem
>to be opposites in common usage. Please explain.

I'm in favor of a woman having the ability to choose abortion, against
the idea that this is mandated by the Constitution.

--
"Facts are facts, as the saying is."                        - Smollett

Pro-Choice       Anti-Roe                             - E. Elizabeth Bartley
Newsgroups: tcd.talk,soc.women,soc.men,talk.rape,talk.abortion,rec.arts.sf.misc
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: A rather peculiar letter.
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 00:02:30 GMT

mrharri@jake.cc.wayne.edu (Marissa Harrison) writes:
>>My idea of a compromise:
>>
>>	(1) Legal abortion to 14 weeks.
>>	(2) Legal abortion health of the mother
>>	(3) Legal abortion rape/incest
>>
>>I still believe abortion is wrong but legalizing any action
>>does not make it morally right. It leaves the decision to
>>the mother.
>>
>>--
>Why can't everyone come to this conclusion?  I'm pro-choice, but I would
>have no problem with this compromise!  I'm sure alot of people wouldn't
>(there's always a few that will never be satisfied).  This is indeed a
>moral issue and I believe that the individual should have the ultimate
>say so on what they should do based on their own backround.  This, to
>me, is the closest thing to a REAL compromise.  Neither side gets to
>take all.

I'll go along with this compromise once you show me how not allowing
an abortion after 14 weeks allows "the individual (to) have the
ultimate say so."

If you think you have the right to buy a car, but I cap the price at
$14K, are you free to exercise your right to buy a car?

Newsgroups: soc.women
From: pciszek@isis.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek)
Subject: Re: You want to win(Men's rights and Women's rights).
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 03:56:59 GMT

slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:


>For the sake of argument, assume that Suzanne here is 
>correct in her assumption that abortions will become 
>illegal.  Let us leave the exceptions to be cases of 
>rape, incest, and overt threat to maternal health.

>How would the picture change?  How should it change?

I would say that fathers would have to be required to support the child.
Yes, some men will disappear or avoid earning any money.  The fact that
there have always been neglect, abuse, and abandonment by parents of either
gender, whether the children were once wanted or not, does not really change
the nature of the argument.

Breaking things down into three basic situations:

Neither parent wants the child:  Both parents are legally responsible for the
child until they can locate someone else who is willing to take custody.
If this party is willing to assume complete financial and legal responsibility
for the child, the parents are relieved of any future liability-- or
privlidges-- towards the child.  If the child ends up a ward of the state,
the father should definately by required to provide some ammount of support;
whether the mother has any financial liability in addition to being required
to carry the child to term, I will leave to other net.pundits.

One parent wants the child:  This parent would receive custody unless they
had been convicted of murder or something.  A non-custodial father would
have to pay child support, and again I leave the matter of maternal support
payments open.  If the non-custodial parent wants visitation rights, etc.,
this should be settled early on.  Whether the non-custodial financial
obligation can be permanently removed by agreement between the two parents
is another interesting issue; I would say, though, that if the custodial
parent dies the other parent would have an obligation again.

Both parents want the child:  This would end up looking a lot like present
day divorce court.  I think that fathers should be given equal consideration
as potential parents in this case.  In any case, the legality of abortion
would not affect this situation too much.

--
Paul Ciszek, pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu | Saddam Hussein still has a job; do you?
Xref: sparky soc.women:8836 rec.sport.basketball.pro:8055
From: russ@Xylogics.COM (Russel M. Lamoreaux)
Newsgroups: soc.women,rec.sport.basketball.pro
Subject: Re: Women
Date: 10 Apr 92 17:06:20 GMT
Followup-To: soc.women
Organization: Xylogics, Inc., Burlington MA
In-reply-to: lavellin@gn.ecn.purdue.edu's message of 10 Apr 92 04:31:20 GMT


In article <1992Apr10.043120.4192@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> some clown named
Joseph Lavelline writes:

>Some girls like to buy new shoes and others like driving trucks and
>wearing tatoos.


Your insight of Basketball is surpassed only by your knowledge of women.

Russ-
From: shortell@risky.ecs.umass.edu (Laurel L Shortell)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Men Are Not Cost Effective
Date: 15 Apr 92 17:15:19 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Apr10.213016.6513@watserv1.waterloo.edu> dmcanzi@watserv1.waterloo.edu (David Canzi) writes:
>
>Actually, men have been told that it is our duty, when another man
>makes a sexist joke or remark, to rebuke him.  Ie.  We have been held
>to blame for the attitudes of other men unless we actively applied peer
>pressure to influence their attitudes in the "proper" direction.
>

If you are in a conversation with another man who makes
sexist or racist or homophobic comments while talking
to you, then you are implicitly supporting his views
if you do not call him on it. The same is true for me
in conversations with people of either gender. You may
say "Just because I didn't say anything doesn't mean
I supported his views", but by keeping silent, you are
telling this person that it is okay to spout these kinds
of remarks in your presence. You allow him to remain
comfortable while making oppressive statements and he
is never forced to consider the appropriateness or
consequences of his behavior. And for those who do not
even realize they are doing harm, mentioning that you
find this beahvior offensive may be the only way such
people will ever begin to question their own beliefs
and actions as well as their effect on others.

Something to think about...

Laurel
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall)
Subject: Re: short marriages
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 01:40:39 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.230705.16777@ccu.umanitoba.ca> kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts) writes:
>I am not debating what it takes to make a good relationship.  I am asserting
>that a good life, making rational decisions, does not necessarily mean
>a lifetime with one partner.
>
>Ken

 Yes, I agree.
   
 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.
From: kenneth@ducvax.auburn.edu
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Men Are Not Cost Effective
Date: 16 Apr 92 09:56:10 GMT

> )If you are in a conversation with another man who makes
>                                            ^^^ person
> )sexist or racist or homophobic comments while talking
> )to you, then you are implicitly supporting his views
> )if you do not call him on it.
> 
> Nope.  You are remaining silent, not supporting their views.  If you think it
> is in your best interests not to have an argument about it at that particular
> time, there's no responsibility on your part to 'call him' (or her) on it.

My thoughts, as well.
 
> I think one  should speak up only when one is actually annoyed by
> the comments AND one feels that it would be worthwhile to give the person
> this feedback on one's feelings.

I totally agree.  I've always been a person who has spoken my mind.  I don't
let "peer pressure," or any other excuse to cloud my judgement in general.
Everyone, at one time or another, says things they wish they could take
back, myself included.  As far as not saying anything about sexist, racist,
or homophobic comments being "[implicitly supporting those views,]" that
is the BIGGEST crock of SHIT I've EVER heard.  There are MANY factors involved
in it.  One can disagree with a policy by simply not complying.  Its called
"passive resistance."  If someone tells me to jump off a cliff or to kill
the President of the United States, and I do not say explicitly, "I DON'T
WANT TO," then the implication is that I support that action.  If someone
off the street says the same thing, and if I ignore him (or HER!), then I'm
"implicitly supporting" his/her views.  Yea, right!

Sorry, but the law says otherwise.  NON-response of any particular inquiry
can NOT be construed as acceptance of that inquiry.  For instance, if someone
mails you something saying something like, "You will own this beautiful grass
shack in Numbnutz, Arizona, for only $2,500,000!  Just sign and return the
enclosed card if you want to turn down the offer."  No, sorry.  It doesn't
work like that.  A non-response does not mean you owe the bozos 2.5 Million.
All it means is that you ignored them.

Ken
From: bev@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu (Beverly Huntsberger)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Men Are Not Cost Effective
Date: 13 Apr 92 16:19:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: opusc.1992Apr13.161925.11868
Distribution: na
Organization: Univ. of South Carolina, Columbia

In <8087@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul) writes:

>Melinda Shore writes

>+ You do not, because we know that these idiots are atypical.
>+ So why, exactly, has this been posted to soc.women? 

>Gee, maybe, just maybe, he thought women would be interested in
>fighting ignorance and stupidity?

>It's one thing to write to the net - our words really have 
>little substance. It's another to write a book - something
>physical, a presence that lends credence to the words.

>K'Char

	I agree that these net ramblings differ from a book
	but which has more credence depends on the circles
	you travel in and the inner voice you follow.

	I think it's quite interesting how so many people will
	comment, question and flame about a book they will
	never bother to read for themselves.

	I thank the original poster for the info and if I
	am curious, I will head for a bookstore or library.
	I might sincerely request if anyone has read it,
	but I won't simply wonder out loud about the nature
	of the author's meaning, lifestyle, birthplace and
	hair color ;) without having any information about
	these details.
bah
-- 
-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Just read his lips:
Now, he wants us to believe in the "tooth fairy".
-	-	-	-	-	-	-
From: clong@romulus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Surgeon General Antonia Novello
Date: 15 Apr 92 01:43:13 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


Could anyone provide me with a little more information on Antonia
Novello, e.g. her qualifications?  From what she's done since she
assumed the office of Surgeon General she looks like a real idiot.
Just another Bush puppet?
Newsgroups: soc.women