HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: soc.feminism
Date: 31 Jul 92 17:18:10 GMT
Reply-To: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Dept., Madison, WI

In <1992Jul30.231823.29183@ccu.umanitoba.ca> kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts) writes:
>One of the moderators soc.feminism told me that they had very few complaints
>about the way that group is moderated.  I found that surprising.

This says to me that you have some problems with it.  May I inquire as to
what they are?

I don't read many of the threads on soc.feminism - mainly only ones whose
subject lines grab my attention, such as "men's issues vs. women's issues" -
but I can't think of any problems I've had with the moderation.  Even when
I've had articles rejected.

-- 
Michael Rawdon
rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Department, Madison, WI

"I don't want to be a messiah, messiahs die young."
						- Men Without Hats
Xref: sparky soc.men:13795 talk.politics.guns:18159
From: baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich)
Newsgroups: soc.men,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: 2/3 of shoplifters ar
Date: 28 Jul 92 18:49:34 GMT
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: BT North America, San Jose CA.

In article <ATAYLOR.92Jul28084522@gauss.nmsu.edu>, ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
|> <In article <2147@tymix.Tymnet.COM> baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich) writes:
|> <In article <1992Jul25.191233.25220@zooid.guild.org>, goid@zooid.guild.org (Will Steeves) writes:
|> <|> baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich) writes...
|> <|>>And anyway, shoplifting a pack of Pampers(tm) is much more morally defensibl
|> <|>>than shoplifting a semi-automatic weapon so you can take over the neighborho
|> <|>>drug trade.
|> <|> 
|> <|> That is QUITE stereotypical, Duane.
|> 
|> <   And quite a bit funnier than your reply. So, what's your point?
|> 
|> 	Please post just one example where someone "shoplifted
|> 	a semi-automatic weapon" to "take over the neighborhood
|> 	drug trade".
|> 
|> <"Come on man, spit it out!" - Ren Hoek
|> 
|> 	Well?

If sarcasm was taken out of context would anoyone notice? The paragraph noted
above was part of a sarcastic followup by me. If you only look at it it
could be taken as an extreme statement. If you want the context go back
and look it up yourself.

My point to goid is that the original was meant as a joke and that I knew
absolutely that I was using stereotypes. As a matter of fact, the joke won't
work without stereotypes. I can imagine a great number of people not thinking
that it was funny. However, I agree with John Cleese that someone must be the
brunt of a joke. 

-- 
d'baba Duane M. Hentrich	baba@Tymnet.Com

We have yet to learn that the thing uttered in words is not therefore affirmed. It must affirm itself, or no forms of logic or of oath can give it evidence. 
The sentence must also contain its own apology for being spoken. - R.W.Emerson
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity
From: nancyo@fraser.sfu.ca (Nancy Patricia O'Connor)
Subject: Re: Right to not support
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 01:36:27 GMT

jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress) writes:

>       Prehistorically -- kids were NOT supported by
>    the genetic father -- no one even knew who he was
>    -- the community supported them.

These communities you refer to would have been heavily composed
of a child's mother's relatives, and it would have thus been
more advantageous for the maternal relatives to ensure the
survival of the child than for a man who might or might not
have been the father to.

We live in a society where DNA testing should eliminate this
uncertain paternity, and it would thus be (if he is able)
in the father's best interest to support his child.

Newsgroups: soc.men
From: cgates@mitre.org (Curt Gates)
Subject: Re: Tax Breaks for Decent White Folks
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 12:56:41 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.020554.25184@leland.Stanford.EDU> 
dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dave Eisen) writes:
> I'm a long-time subscriber, but this editorial has driven me
> to cancel my subscription and give the folks over at the Chronicle
> a piece of my mind. I hope any of you who read the Chronicle
> do the same.

As if they really care whether a  *reader* cancels a
subscription.  What a paper really worries about is its advertisers. 

If you are *really* bothered by this, target a few advertisers and write 
them personal letters saying that you are surprised that they are supporting 
this editorial position with their advertising dollars. Enclose a 
copy of the editorial and ask the advertiser whether they, as a business, 
support this view.  If you select small, owner-operated businesses, some 
of them are certain to get back to the paper, which will then feel some 
effective heat.  Corporate advertisers will probably file your letter in 
the marshmellow machine, but you can try.  The goal is to get a bunch of 
*advertisers* calling the paper.   

************************************
Angry people defeat themselves on the battlefield as well as in life.
(Samurai maxim via Joe Hyams)
************************************ 
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Yet Another AA Argument
Organization: my opinions only
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 02:19:32 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.215347.8765@colorado.edu>
fedrick@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Kelvin W. Fedrick) writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.001412.2194@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
>>
>>I think that you're confusing AA with EO.
>
> I do not know all the formal details of either so if it makes thinks clearer,
> I will say that I am arguing on the basis of both AA/EO, since I think that
> there are issues that intimately tied between the two.

It's quite simple.  Equal Opportunity says that you do not
discriminate on the basis of race.  Affirmative Action originally
meant that you took special action to make sure you did not
discriminate (e.g. advertise jobs in newspapers read mostly by
minorities, then hire the most qualified applicants).  AA now means
giving preference to minorities.

> There are issues
> plainly in one or the other (college admission and financial aid for racial
> and ethnic minorities historically discriminated etc..) is clearly in AA
> if the individual is not qualified for example.

That's what I object to.

> The line gets blurred
> however when one considers that EO (i believe) deals with examining
> minority hiring ratios (which was the original reason for blasting *AA*
> as i remember). Using minority employee percentages however can be used
> as a tool for both EO or AA. When there is a clear distinction I will
> try to be more specific which I am refering to.

If you're using ratios, then you're into a quota system, which is
unfair.

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.censorship,alt.politics.correct
From: aviksroy@athena.mit.edu (Avik S. Roy)
Subject: Re: P.C. Professors Try to Censor Anti-Feminist Book
Keywords: Paglia's "Sexual Personae"
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 20:06:39 GMT

lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

) 	One thing that most of the popularizations lack is
) appreciation of individual variation. How does the mean of one's
) favorite psychological sex difference compare to its variation in each
) sex? Is it something like:
)
)
)    /\      /\
)   /  \    /  \
) _/    \__/    \_
)
) or something like
)
)    /X\
)   // \\
) _//   \\_
)
) ?

That is a very important question, but one which we are only beginning to answer
in molecular biology.  One should be skeptical of any "popularization" which
purports to answer this question, for there is little rock-solid evidence one way
or another at this time for most cases.
Xref: sparky soc.men:13950 soc.women:14386
From: dswartz@redondo.sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: soc.feminism
Date: 31 Jul 92 01:44:28 GMT
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: Stratus Computer, Software Engineering

In article <1992Jul30.231823.29183@ccu.umanitoba.ca> kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca 
(K\
enneth John Aarts) writes:
>One of the moderators soc.feminism told me that they had very few complaints
>about the way that group is moderated.  I found that surprising.

Oh, you too?  Actually, given the problem with expecting an honest,
unbiased self-criticism from most people, I'm not sure that the number
of complaints they admit to is a useful metric (I'm not questioning
anyone's veracity, it's just that few people think of themselves as
evil, wrong, misguided, etc...  there are always rationalizations).
And even if that metric was reliable, I'm not sure it would means much,
because at lot of folks, if they got a posting rejected, would just
say "Oh, screw them!" and forget about it.

>Ken    
-- 

Dan S.
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.censorship,alt.politics.correct
From: aviksroy@athena.mit.edu (Avik S. Roy)
Subject: Re: P.C. Professors Try to Censor Anti-Feminist Book
Keywords: Paglia's "Sexual Personae"
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 00:34:33 GMT

lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

) You might find it fun to read what Carol Tavris has had to say
) about alleged biological sex differences. She successfully debunks a
) lot of myths about supposed gender differences, IMO. And if she fails,
) I would like to know in gory detail how she goes wrong. Unsupported
) accusations of Political Correctness will be held to demonstrate the
) weakness of the criticism.

Who is Carol Tavris?  Are we talking about a book, or articles?
The nice thing about discussing whether or not gender differences are "supposed"
is that they are grounded in scientific study and can't be deconstructed out of
political whim.  Can you share with us some of Carol Tavris' assertions on gender
differences?
From: ABBST@vms.cis.pitt.edu ("Al"")
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: soc.feminism
Date: 31 Jul 92 17:49:00 GMT

>And even if that metric was reliable, I'm not sure it would means much,
>because at lot of folks, if they got a posting rejected, would just
>say "Oh, screw them!" and forget about it.

This is how I feel.  Soc.feminism is a waste of my time.  If they want
their own "sandbox" I say `fine'.  They can have it.  They can read it.
If you guys just let them preach to the converted they'd get bored.
Instead, they have you to "reject" and therefore give "purpose" to
their "lives". ;-)

Al
Xref: sparky soc.men:13848 soc.women:14282 misc.legal:15085 alt.child-support:2288 alt.dads-rights:1640
From: root@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick   )
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Date: 30 Jul 92 05:32:01 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress) writes:

> Chuck Irvine writes
> > I think in the main he is being selfish (which, to an extent, 
> > he and we must be) and vindictive (and I don't blame him 
> > for this either), and he would do better to admit this.
> 
>     You don't know me.
>     How ignorant of you to make assumptions about me!

From the FREE archives (alt.child-support, volume IV) of June:

jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress ) writes:
> It is selfish. I don't care!!! I will not be a slave!!! I will
> go to jail!!! She will not get money from me!!!

You've stated clearly in this forum that you are only concerned
with your needs when it comes to money. I admit that you have
managed to locate some articles which supported your position
that your presence in your children's life was detrimental, but
you have stated yourself that you "won't give her the satisfac-
tion," and that you are "selfish."

C'mon. You and I have been pretty straight with each other. You
can admit that you have self-interest and a little pleasure in
your actions. Nobody can fault you for that. It's human. Stick
to your opinions, but let's try to be objective. Ok?


---
Bob Kirkpatrick  --  Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA
root@dogear.spk.wa.us           bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,alt.folklore.urban,misc.legal
From: tsmaster@media.mit.edu (David LeCompte)
Subject: Re: Ed Nilges and Snuff Films?
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 21:04:07 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.050251.25566@news.eng.convex.com> datri@convex.com (Anthony A. Datri) writes:
>>You've been reading too much MacKinnon.  No such thing as snuff films.
>>At least, none have ever been documented.
>
>It may be a stretch, but I recently saw a program on a local public station
>that included explicit footage from the Holocaust.

It is a stretch.

The criterion to remember is that the murder is planned *for* the
film. i.e. if the camera runs out of film/batteries/swill the murder
would be postponed until it would be possible to film.

Unless you are alleging that the Holocaust was created with a really
killer (ooh, sorry!) PBS documentary in mind, it's not a snuff film.

	-Dave "Kinda puts PBS in a different light" LeCompte

-- 
---------------------
ObSig
Xref: sparky soc.men:13879 soc.women:14327 misc.legal:15164 alt.child-support:2305 alt.dads-rights:1655
From: wgb3@pyuxf.uucp (25337-buoni)
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 17:00:17 GMT

From porthos!walter!att!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!destroyer!uunet!ogicse!plains!news.u.washington.edu!news Fri Jul 31 12:44:33 EDT 1992

>No man should be dehumanized by the removal
>of his "Right To Not Support".  Be that 
>financial support to minor children anything
>else.  Slavery should be outlawed!

He should have considered that before he dropped his pants!!  This is NOT
slavery, it is called responsibility.  Individuals not wishing to be 
responsible for the possible consequnces of an action should not partake in
that action.

>  Social Security provides for people who
>are over 65 -- it should further provide for 
>the minor children.

Great, so instead of the individual being responsible for his own actions, 
we all get to share the burden.  I believe in assistance to the needy, but I 
also believe in inflicting great pain to bastards who refuse to be responsible 
for their own children!!  

>  This forced relationship between a man and 
>a child will only be a source of abuse -- 
>like babies in garbage cans.

Who is forcing a relationship.  Just pay what you owe and begone.  An ass like
you (my opinion) could only further damage the innocent, unfortunate child you 
FATHERed! How can you live with yourself????  If I had an attitude like yours, 
I'd hide my head in shame.

>  Every human should have the choice of who
>he will or will not support!!

You do, next time your hormones start talking to you, JUST SAY NO!!!!
(Better yet, jump from your nearest bridge.  You'll be doing us all a favor!)

Bill Buoni
My opinions are my own and do not reflect those of my employer
From: baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: How much $$ is enough?
Date: 24 Jul 92 21:55:06 GMT
Organization: BT North America, San Jose CA.

In article <4320037@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com>, kurts@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Kurt Strain) writes:
|> Our local newspaper here in Santa Rosa, California reports that a new law
|> ups the cost for child support payments in this state and the men in court
|> are having a shock of their life.  Citing the fact that California does
|> not want to be outspent on anything (such as highest cost of living, taxes,
|> etc) it moved its child support payment requirements from the bottom half
|> to the top 10 of all states.  
|> 
|> Mo' money, mo' money, mo' money!

For those of you not residing nor caring about the People's Republic of
California I thought I'd point out some of the irony in Kurt's post by telling
you that California is not in the top 10 of states re per student spending
on education, Many if not most public schools are dropping extracurricular
activities such as sports(all of them), music(no bands/orchgestras), drama,
etc. down to and including librarians, staff and teachers. On top of
that, the new state budget, due last month, is almost bound to have more
cuts to education.(I won't even attempt to tell you of the state workers
who are getting IOUs instead of paychecks)

The Lord giveth and the Lord taketht away.
Robbing Peter to pay Paul.
The left hand don't know what the right one's doin'.

Or something like that.
-- 
d'baba Duane M. Hentrich	baba@Tymnet.Com

We have yet to learn that the thing uttered in words is not therefore affirmed. It must affirm itself, or no forms of logic or of oath can give it evidence. 
The sentence must also contain its own apology for being spoken. - R.W.Emerson
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Another pogrom (was Re: Another program)
Organization: Penn State Computer Science
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 19:38:27 GMT

In article <10033@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul) writes:
>I've seen promo's for a show on Lifetime (a cable channel) hosted
>by Linda Ellerbe and [I think] Harry Hamlin. The topic was to be
>sexual harrasment. 
[...]
>What got my attention was Ellerbe's voice over: (about SexualHarrasment)
>..why do women allow it to happen, and why do men do it?
>
>I really hate it when someone attempts an investigative type report
>when they have a built-in bias coming out of the starting blocks...

This seems to be pretty typical on Lifetime.  They promote themselves
as defenders of women's rights and interests, often with very direct 
male-bashing statements.  It has made me wonder whether their
advertisers are looking for a particular market, but I haven't paid
attention to whose commercials appear there.  Has anyone noticed?

>
>K'Char - can YOU spot the built-in bias?

Yes.

Don
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: soc.feminism
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 17:05:43 GMT

In article <1992Jul31.051800.255682@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

)Maybe it was just a bias against you, Hillel.  There are plenty 
)of anti-feminist men posting there now (I assume that these people 
)fit your definition of Politically Incorrect.)  If they turned 
)down one of your articles these days, I'd join you in making a 
)complaint.

I'm not quite sure what the problem is with soc.feminism, but I've also
had problems with the moderation there recently - severe enough that I
have unsubscribed to the group.

One of the problems I observed (when I still participated) is that they
tended to post flame-bait, and then avoided posting the resonses.

Then there was the 'dear' incident with yours truly.  (Moderator's postings
using the D(ear) word got through, but responses using a similar S(nookums)
word were not allowed.  Complaints about a double standard were ignored -
I could understand a response along the lines of "Sorry we let that first
one get through, but we don't want to have a flame-war here".  However,
that wasn't the approach they took.  No apologies or comment on the Dear
word were ever forthcoming.

Whether the problem is personal bias, or political bias, there is some
very poor moderation going on in that group - or there was when I left it.

They may be making some effort not to be really obvious about it - it's
possible that they are even trying their best to do a good job (my guess is
that there is some variation within the moderators - some are honestly trying
to do a good job, and others are simply trying to keep up apperances).
However, whatever the reason (which is probably not possible to know), there
is some definite bias there, IMO - if nothing else, from the people who
have decided to leave the group.
From: baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Ed Nilges and Snuff Films?
Date: 23 Jul 92 23:02:39 GMT
Organization: BT North America, San Jose CA.

In article <3548@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>, tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood) writes:
|>>Yes, there is no relationship. Please read the FAQ. The subject has been
|>>thrashed many times. We are still waiting for more info from our most hopeful
|>>lead in England - HRS4. Unfortunately, he has been silent on the subject for
|>>months now.
|> 
|> Geeze, you suppose he's been SNUFFed OUT!?!?!

Film at eleven.

-- 
d'baba Duane M. Hentrich	baba@Tymnet.Com

We have yet to learn that the thing uttered in words is not therefore affirmed. It must affirm itself, or no forms of logic or of oath can give it evidence. 
The sentence must also contain its own apology for being spoken. - R.W.Emerson
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: tattersall_derek@macmail1.rtsg.mot.com
Subject: Re:  Exercise wear for the abundant of flesh
Organization: CSG Group
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 21:45:31 GMT

In article <24345@castle.ed.ac.uk> cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) writes:
>In article <1992Jul27.015816.8864@deeptht.armory.com>
rstevew@deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz) writes:
>
>>I tend to doubt the politics or the
>>self-awareness or the personal confidence, or the honesty of a woman
>>who shaves her legs, or her arm-pits for that matter. I have been lied
>>to more often by that kind than by those who don't shave. I believe
>>that can be generalized to men as well in my experience.
>
>Too true. Don't trust a man who shaves his legs.  Be very wary of a
>man who shaves his face. Don't turn your back on a man wearing a wig.
>And don't lend money to a man wearing a skirt.
>-- 
>Chris Malcolm    cam@uk.ac.ed.aifh          +44 (0)31 650 3085
>Department of Artificial Intelligence,    Edinburgh University
>5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK                DoD #205
>
And don't eat at a place called Mom's or play poker with a man called Doc.
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: cgates@mitre.org (Curt Gates)
Subject: Re: Men's Issues Newsbriefs #47
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 13:06:37 GMT

>After analyzing 1,000 commercials in 1987, researcher Fred Hayward 
>reported in Family Therapy Networker (Nov./Dec. 1988) that "when an 
>ad called for a negative portrayal in a male-female interaction, an 
>astonishing 100 per cent of the time the 'bad guy' was a man."

My informal tally for New England telephone radio ads is also 100 percent. 
Their male is usually stupid or incompetent, not necessarily bad.  One of 
their most recent male-bashing ads ended with the invitation, New England 
Telephone, love us or leave us. If I had any alternative to that 
monopolly, I would pull the plug on the NYNEX family instantly. Is it 
worth the effort to start calling these companies on the content of their 
ads? 

************************************
I worked as a technical writer ... editing manuals ... on how to dispose 
of sewage in permafrost; we all had to wear white shirts -- that was 
mandatory -- and I was fired at the end of two weeks for spending too much 
time staring out the window.  
(Edward Abbey)
************************************