HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jmw@next00pg2.wam.umd.edu (Jeanette M. Williams)
Subject: Re: *THAT* Question!
Organization: Workstations at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 07:21:46 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.084511.5540@news.cs.indiana.edu> Amy Young Leith  
<alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu> writes:
> In article <1992Aug10.231542.15887@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>  
rcrawfor@nyx.cs.du.edu (Ron Crawford) writes:
> >   That's pretty close to a direct quote. In English the question is:
> >Could you have sex with a girl you just met knowing that there is no
> >chance of any real relationship? 
> > 
> >   My answer is NO. I couldn't have sex with a girl I just met, period. 
> >Not if I had a good chance of a lasting relationship. Not even if she
> >was looking for a one-nighter. No matter how fast the hormones are 
> >running, I never had(and probably never will) have a sexual encounter
> >like this. A little light, a faint voice... something in the back of
> >mind my tells me not to. Conscience<gasp>, mebbe? I dunno...
> 
> There's a time and a place for everything.  You just aren't the
> "place" for a one nighter, which is fine. 
> 
> >   How many people out there, if any, are like me? Am I destined for
> >the priesthood? Just what am I missing? Is it out of style to get to
> >know the girl before jumping in the bed with her? From what I see
> >now-a-days and by what I've heard of years' past, I think I would have 
> >fit better in the later. And, why does it seem that no _attractive_
> >girls have an attitude like mine?
> 
> You've spoken to every "attractive" girl and no one agrees with you?
> Or are you saying that your small sample size simply doesn't.  The
> more people you know, the more variations on opinions youwill find. 
> 
> >   Sometimes I feel like saying the hell with it all... But I just
> >can't. 
> 
> And why should you?  If this is the way you feel, then stick with it,
> regardless of what others think.  
> 
> >Any comments? Suggestions? Psychological help offers? Any anything?
> 
> Personally, I could, and have.  However, it's not a prefered method of
> interacting with people.  It's just sex... and I can go home and get
> "just sex" and a little more with myself and I, without the hassle of
> incorporating another person's needs, wants, desires, and problems
> into it.  
> 
> Get to know more people.  And don't even *think* about sex when you
> first meet/go out with someone.  Don't worry about "the sex question."
> It'll make things a lot easier. 
> amy
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator)
Subject: WOMEN/LABOR: Victory for Midford Women
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Originator: daemon@pencil.cs.missouri.edu
Organization: misc.activism.progressive on UseNet ; ACTIV-L@UMCVMB
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 01:02:56 GMT


    Helen felt there was a lesson for all workers in the dispute.
    ``Don't let people with money walk all over you [...]

[Via misc.activism.progressive from PeaceNet's apc.labour]
[Inquiries by email, please, to harelb@math.cornell.edu, for more
information about PeaceNet/EcoNet or about misc.activism.progressive]
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Topic 201       GL:Victory for Midford Women 
hrcoord apc.labour      10:01 am  Aug 15, 1992 
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From: Human Rights Coordinator <hrcoord> 
Subject: GL:Victory for Midford Women 
/* Written  6:13 pm  Aug 11, 1992 by peg:greenleft in cdp:greenleft.news */ 
Victory for Midford women 

By Bernie Brian 

WOLLONGONG - Seventy five women who had been picketing the  
Midford Paramount clothing factory because their former employer  
owed them $450,000 in superannuation and retrenchment  
entitlements have claimed victory. 

Midford-Paramount had been sold to the Sydney-based Gazal  
Corporation in 1990. Ownership was transferred to a Gazal  
subsidiary, Zallag Holdings, although Gazal maintained ownership  
of all stock, machinery and the Midford label. When Zallag went  
into liquidation last month, it was unable to meet redundancy  
provisions for its work force and Gazal refused to accept any  
responsibility. 

However, in a dramatic turnaround last week, Gazal director  
Michael Gazal offered to pay $400,000 to the women. It is  
believed that the main reason for the about-face was the bad  
publicity the company was receiving and the call for a boycott of  
Gazal products by the NSW Trades and Labour Council. Just prior  
to Gazal's back-down, the company had lost over $1 million in  
cancelled orders from a group of Catholic schools in South  
Australia. 

One of the picketers, Helen, who had worked at the plant for six  
years, told Green Left, ``We wanted to win, but we didn't think  
we had much of a chance. When we heard we had got the money, it  
was better than Christmas.'' 

Helen felt there was a lesson for all workers in the dispute.  
``Don't let people with money walk all over you; we've all got  
our rights. We were treated like animals inside that factory, but  
we put up with it because we were scared of losing our jobs. So  
they thought they could walk all over us and say, 'That's it, bad  
luck, there's no money so 
just go away'. But we stood up to them, and look what we've  
achieved.'' 

Helen also felt that the dispute had ``disproved the notion that  
women won't fight and won't stick together. We stuck together and  
we have done as well as anyone could have hoped.''
From: stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Hating Men with Full Force
Date: 22 Aug 92 16:02:40 GMT
Followup-To: soc.women
Distribution: usa
Organization: Murasami Labs

In article <1992Aug21.101322.1714@lloyd.Camex.COM>, ma@lloyd.Camex.COM
(Mary Ann Purcell) wrote:

> "look at how the feminists think of men".   Where are the quotes from
> the mainstream feminists?  How about me?  I think of myself as radical
> and I don't hate men.  You can quote me.

Ok. But...how come the radicals get invited to speak to the mainstreamers?
Over and over and over again? with the same message? Where are the movers
and shakers in mainstream feminism? Who is your counterpart to Dworkin
and MacKinnon?

See? They DO things: enact legislation, make statements to the media and
make themselves known. And known as feminists. Where is the vaunted middle?

All I'm saying is that as long as you permit them to grab center stage
and let them define themselves as feminists *without* providing a counter
point, then you will be defined (in the public's eyes) to be similar to
them.

K'Char
From: kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Another right to not support?
Date: 14 Aug 92 16:09:00 GMT
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated

In article <32620070@hpmwmat.sr.hp.com> mikep@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Mike Powell) writes:
>	
>	OK....
>
>	How's this angle....
>
>	A woman currently has the 'right' to put "her" child up for
>	adoption at birth right?
>
>	Should a man have the same right?  (ie: put "his" child up
>	for adoption)
>
>	-Mike-
>


My view is this:

1) A man should be able to figuratively abort the fetus ONLY while the women
   can legally, physically do so (so if abortion is contitutionally banned,
   the man can no longer figuratively abort).  He must inform the woman in
   some sort of legal document that he is doing so during this period so 
   she will know that she is going it alone if she continues the pregnancy.  
   The man then gives up all parental rights and responsibilities.  He can 
   not change his mind later and interfere in the life and choices of the
   woman.

2) Currently, a *couple* can decide to give up the baby for adoption.  
   There have been few cases of the woman wanting to give up the baby
   for adoption while the man wanted to keep the baby.  In one case I
   know of, the man gained custody of the baby.  I have no idea if the
   woman is paying child-support, but she should be.
   This is the fair equivalent to the woman wanting to keep the baby, 
   yet the man has decided it should be given up for adoption.

3) Neither of these scenarios are really as common as the case where
   a married couple has children and then divorce.  The woman gets 
   custody and the man bitterly resents paying money to the woman.
   He does not see it as supporting his children, but as supporting
   her.

4) I think the child support awards have become really unbalanced and
   punitive.

5) I think the children suffer the most in a divorce.  Adults should act
   like adults instead of like hurt children, throwing their anger and
   vindictiveness at their ex- and having it splat on their children.

   But, we are human.  And how many of us really ever grow up emotionally?
   
 Janice Kendall    kendall@adobe.com    ...!{decwrl|sun}!adobe!kendall

		"Creativity overcomes violence."
				John Bradshaw on "Homecoming"
From: dpaxton@ut-emx.uucp (Debi Paxton)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: What bugs you?
Date: 18 Aug 92 17:03:47 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin; Austin, Texas

In article <1992Aug13.191843.27748@javelin.sim.es.com> biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel) writes:
>Everyone has numerous legitimate complaints, some small, some big.
>I'd like to know what single aspect of American society bugs women
>the most.

OK, I'll bite.

For me, it is the NIMBY factor -- Not In My Back Yard.
Sure, we need jails.  But not in our community, and don't raise taxes.
Sure, we need a landfill, an airport, a community home for foster
children, the mentally ill, recovering addicts.  But stick it over
there--on the other side of town--and don't make us pay for it.

While so many of us scream about how other people avoid their
responsibilities, abuse welfare and other government programs,
and live off the backs of "us hardworking taxpayers," I don't
think we generally stop to think about the manner in which, in
our interrelated society, we all essentially compete to get
ours before the other guy gets there first.  Instead, we try
to grab for what we can get and not think too much about who
gets pushed out of the way.  Often we agree in principle that
"something needs to be done," but we don't want to live with the
pain of doing what it takes to solve our problems.

-- 
"Never imitate consciously, but do not worry about being an imitator;
take pains instead to admire what is good."

Debi Paxton                             		dpaxton@emx.utexas.edu
From: stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Sexism by another name(was: Right to not support)
Date: 20 Aug 92 22:56:55 GMT
Followup-To: soc.women
Organization: Murasami Labs

In article <2314@unet.UUCP>, linda@wendy.net.com (Linda Hill) wrote:

> All the stories I hear from women are of having to fend off men trying to get
> them in bed soon after meeting them, and the men talk about "getting to third
> base" like it's a major goal in life.  Is it all a bunch of media hype, or
> what?

You have the insight, but fail to apply it:

> I thought I would express how my culture has taught me to view men.

That same culture has taught men how to _show_ their manliness - in the
manner you describe. Gotta score with the babes, ya know?

And it's a bind for young men - it's the NiceGuy [tm](NG) vs. The Jerk 
[tm] (TJ) argument. In case you're not familiar with it - the NG is 
not considered dating material by the women/girls that he knows. They
all seem to pursue TJ's. Then they come crying to the NG about what
a...well...Jerk the TJ has been to them, and it cycles again. Face it 
- playing the part of TJ *is* successful. 

And it allows women to claim the moral high ground - 'all men want is
sex - the pigs!'. Even as women help perpetuate the cycle.

I suspect no significant change in the _status_quo_ will occur until
a sizable number of women ask men out for the first date on a regular 
basis.

K'Char
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Sexual Selectivity an
X-To: TRYGVE LODE
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 21:35:00 GMT

tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes...
TL> know a few people who quite literally "grabbed the next available MOTAS"

Okay...newbie question coming....

What is a MOTAS?

---
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 * Night of the living dead chipmunks.
-- 
Ross Ridge - The Great HTMU					     l/	 //
								    [OO][oo]
ross@zooid.guild.org						    /()\/()/
uunet.ca!zooid!ross						     db	 //
From: starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu (aaron greenwood)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Hating Men with Full Force
Date: 21 Aug 92 02:54:46 GMT
Organization: University of California, Riverside

In article <1992Aug19.162420.4446@tc.cornell.edu> shore@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Melinda Shore) writes:
.
..I am not surprised that there are women who hate men.  What
..surprises me is *which* women hate men.  No, it isn't the
..radical feminists or the lesbian separatists who make sweeping
..and general anti-male statements, it's the heterosexual housewives
..and the rather ordinary, run-of-the mill women who engage in
..outrageous male-bashing.  
>       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu

Why do you lie Melinda?

Radical Feminists and lesbian sparatists make sweeping and general anti-male
statements all the the time.  It is not unusual at all.  The women who was
quoted from the Jan. 92 issue of "Liberty is Houston Chronicle reporter
Jacsun Shah.   Hardly a "run-of-the-mill" women.  Hardly a heterosexual
house spouse.  She calls herself a feminist. 

Hetrosexual housewives?
Ordinary, run-of-the-mill women?

What do your choice of words mean?  They seem very offensive. They sound 
very anti-women. 

What is Ironic is that you try to lay blame on women who from the way
you discribe them have no way to defend themselves from your charge.
Unless of course you approve of outrageours male-bashing in which case
bash on.

.....And it's the men who behave in the
..most disgustingly sexist manner who are confused and angered by
..it.  Ironic, huh?

Not, as people say.  Ms. Shah seems to be the confused one in the most
disgustingly sexist manner.  

starbuck
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: cherokee@b11.b11.ingr.com (Lori Ludick)
Subject: AIDS
Reply-To: cherokee@b11.b11.ingr.com (Lori Ludick)
Organization: Intergraph Corp. Huntsville, AL
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 17:25:49 GMT


Alot has been said about AIDS , how and who catches it.
I especially liked the comment heterosexual people do not get aids only the
women do. Very nice...

AIDS can be passed from female to male.
You are very foolish to think that just because you are a male and are having
non violent vaginal sex with a woman that you are free from AIDS. All you
need is a nik on the penis and you are very vulnerable, even that is not 
neccessary, if her fluids enter into you, you can be easily infected.

AIDS is not just a homosexual problem, for a little horror message---
remember Kimberly Bergalis (sp)...she went to a dentist who had AIDS and
she became infected along with several other patientes of his...the dentist
has died since but he is still under investigation to see if he did it on 
purpose. Remember that the next time you go see your dentist.

or how about the hospitals that have mixed up peoples blood and when they 
were suppose to get their own blood they received AIDs infected blood instead.




on another note...


I was wondering how many people saw the article in the Utne Reader concerning
another theory of how AIDS began and why it seems to be able to allude the
scientists.

Basically the theory is that AIDS started from a variance of the polio vaccines
US did in Africa around 1954. It seems that US used some sick monkeys to get 
the vaccine and injected several Africans with this. There are some viles still
in storage with these vaccines and scientists want to test them but the 
scientists that worked on the polio project do not want them to and are
preventing them. That is bvery basic what was said in the article.


Xref: sparky soc.women:15424 soc.men:15156 sci.bio:2964 sci.skeptic:14571
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Hating Men with Full Force
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 92 20:08:27 GMT

In article <4270023@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com> kurts@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Kurt Strain) writes:
>Did you know that 80% of all US convicted criminals are of one ethnic
>background?  Then is it okay to declare loudly "I hate all ******s with full 
>force!!!" Your justification defending the stand to hate all men is just 
>the reasoning used by neo-Nazis and KKK members. 

It's Crameresque.  You say all lesbigays are or support child
molesters because NAMBLA marches in some Gay Pride parades.  You say
all Republicans are racist because of David Duke.  You say all
feminists are man-haters because some are.
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Another right to not support?
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 15:14:11 GMT

In article <1992Aug15.001101.894@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:

)I think if I were a woman wanting a child, I'd support myself
)financially and have artificial insemination.  If I were a man wanting
)a child, I'd contract out a birth mother. 

That'd be a bad move.  It would cost a large amount of up-front  money, and
in the end you'd still have the same risks anyway.

I believe that one 'birth-mother' already won custody (with 'support'
payments, natch), the contracts weren't held binding.
From: shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Hating Men with Full Force
Date: 20 Aug 92 01:50:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: tc.1992Aug20.015041.20289
Reply-To: shore@tc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell Theory Center

In article <4270022@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com>, kurts@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Kurt Strain) writes:
> And from all I ever 
> read from you, a "feminist bisexual" (I gather from your posts), there has 
> never been heard an encouraging word toward anyone in general. 

Well, here's the thing:  I've been on the net nearly a decade.
I used to participate in ongoing discussions in net.women, but
the level of misogyny drove me out.  I pop my head in from time
to time (I am a feminist and I do care about women's issues),
but I rarely participate any more *except from a sense of outrage.*

> How
> can you state that all the "housewives" are complaining?  Where's your
> data from? 

I never said that "all" housewives are complaining.  I said
that I hear far more complaints from fairly conventional,
mainstream women than I do from fringe feminists.  The reason,
I would guess, is that those of us who have rather less
contact with men can be more abstract about you.  My
interactions with the men I work with are, for the most part,
completely pleasant.  Even if I were having consistently
awful experiences with men (like those in, say, soc.women),
I could go home at night and simply not deal with it.  But
the women I know (friends, women I work with, women at the
barn where I keep my horse) who are married or live with men
constantly make incredibly negative statements, not about
their SOs, but about men in general.

So, when I hear feminists being dismissed completely out-of-
hand as 'man-hating,' it does give me pause.  The same
thing with lesbians.  The article which started this thread was
apparently posted to demonstrate that feminists can  be
ignored because we're motivated by a hatred of men.  This
is patently ridiculous and demonstrably false, but dopes like 
6069870 from Lockheed just eat it up.  Yes, it does bother
me quite a bit.  It's character assassination, and it's a
dandy mechanism for totally ignoring the issues that are
being raised.
-- 
       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu
From: kurts@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Kurt Strain)
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 16:21:03 GMT
Subject: Re: Hating Men with Full Force
Organization: Milky Way Galaxy
Newsgroups: soc.women

In soc.women, revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano) writes:

 
>        It's okay for women to be beaten, tortured, degraded, sold like
>   so much cattle, and even shot. But if one of them says that she hates
>   men, well, that's Evil Incarnate.
>
>        Pretty funny criteria for moral outrage, eh?
 
Did you know that 80% of all US convicted criminals are of one ethnic
background?  Then is it okay to declare loudly "I hate all ******s with full 
force!!!" Your justification defending the stand to hate all men is just 
the reasoning used by neo-Nazis and KKK members.
From: oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Opinions wanted on Faludi's _Backlash_
Date: 20 Aug 92 20:12:01 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha

Laurie Mann writes:

>elizabeth writes
>>I just finished reading Susan Faludi's BACKLASH and would like to know
>>what you all thought of it...does it make sense or is it a bunch of crap?
>>I'm not going to post my own opinions yet so as not to bias the replys
>>I get :).

>Mostly pretty good, accurate about 90% of the time, and a little
>strident in places.  But, she was mad as hell, and she wasn't going
>to take it any more.  And I don't blame her one bit.

And it made ME mad too!  

And I think Faludi is nowhere near as strident as Naomi Wolfe in "The Beauty
Myth."  Wolfe really does go off into a tirade every once in a while, which
can detract from her fairly well-reasoned argument.  Faludi seems to keep her
cool most of the time.  Although, she can really be biting: I *loved* the
chapter about Bloom (author of "The Closing of the American Mind.")

Sharon O'Neil
oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu
From: stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: REQUEST from GIRLS:  List of 20 WORST/UNORIGINAL ways to ask a girl out
Date: 17 Aug 92 23:49:58 GMT
Followup-To: soc.women
Organization: Murasami Labs

Baldwin Ng wrote in the subject line:

 REQUEST from GIRLS:  List of 20 WORST/UNORIGINAL ways to ask a girl out
              ^^^^^                                             ^^^^
Lesson #1: Treat 'em like women, unless they are acting like children.

K'Char
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: acp@cray.com (Anthony Peterson)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Hating Men with Full Force
Date: 19 Aug 92 22:15:51 GMT
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.

>
>I am not surprised that there are women who hate men.  What
>surprises me is *which* women hate men.  No, it isn't the
>radical feminists or the lesbian separatists who make sweeping
>and general anti-male statements, it's the heterosexual housewives
>and the rather ordinary, run-of-the mill women who engage in
>outrageous male-bashing.  And it's the men who behave in the
>most disgustingly sexist manner who are confused and angered by
>it.  Ironic, huh?
>
>       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu
>
	Anyone who can get their head that far up their ass
	should be able to make a fortune in the circus.

	What the hell are you wasting your time at Cornell for?
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: hrose@eff.org (Helen Trillian Rose)
Subject: Norplant (again)
Organization: The Evil Fascist IRC Admins From Hell, Inc.
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 03:11:38 GMT

This time I'm not posting information, I'm asking for it! Does anyone
know of a clinic in the Greater Boston area that (is "installs" the
right word? :) Norplant? I heard an Ad on the radio the other day saying
"And we're the only clinic in New England to offer Norplant!"
Unfortunately, I didn't catch the name or even the location of the
clinic! 

Anyone with information, I'd appreciate it! 

--Helen
--
Helen Trillian Rose             	email eff@eff.org for EFF info
Electronic Frontier Foundation   	irc operators: operlist@eff.org
Systems and Networks Administration	Flames to: 
<hrose@eff.org, hrose@cs.bu.edu>	women-not-to-be-messed-with@eff.org
Newsgroups: soc.women