HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 14:52:03 GMT

In article <11613@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> pepke@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke) writes:
>In article <1993Jan2.205430.10619@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>>It's a different issue.  Education and jobs involving 
>>mathematics are manifestly social constructions.  Longevity 
>>isn't (unless we socially knock a lot of people off).
>
>Education and jobs involving mathematics are manifestly social constructions.
>Modern medicine, which just happens to be about as old as the time period
>during which women have outlived men, is manifestly a social construction.
>
>Skill at mathematics may or may not be a social construction and may or may
>not be innate; it may even be a combination of the two.  Longevity may or
>may not be a social construction and may or may not be innate; it may even
>be a combination of the two.



	Obviously, he knows very little about math.  I would like to
	see him explain away child prodigies (they only only come in
	two flavors,youknow,music and math) as "social constructions". 
	Cognitive skill is very likely to be innate--it's development
	is related to environment, but the skill itself is not.

	Interestingly, most child prodigies are male--the overwhelming
	majority, in fact.  Now, this might not be fair if you consider
	the situation for girls before the turn of the century, but 
	since then this trend has pretty much continued.  Plus, these
	children show signs of their "gift" very early on, before 
	socialization has much of a chance to have effect (age 3 or 4).

	Female prodigies are, for all practical purposes, nonexistant.



>Note if you can that I am not arguing for a particularly envrironmental or
>biological explanation for either phenomenon here.
>
>>May I recommend that you not rely on echolalia as a method 
>>of argumentation?  
>
>May I suggest that you occasionally take a break from your usual practice of
>only dealing with the most superficial interpretation of an opponent's 
>argument?  It really is tiresome.


	I didn't bother replying, because if he cannot take the same stuff
	being spit back at him in an obvious attempt to show what a lunkhead
	sexist he is, well, it's not worth the effort.


-- 
	Blaming "society" for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
         ---  boycott == censorship == closed mindedness == cowardice  ---
	      "Psalms 23:1  The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want."  
		Shepherds are for sheep.   -----      Pain teaches.
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: The White Feather Campaign
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 14:43:26 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.035900.1682@kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca> DPIROT@vm.ucs.UAlberta.CA writes:

>Several 'womens groups' have been reported in the media as
>expressing outrage at the media reports of systematized rape camps
>in Bosnia, and are demanding military intervention in Bosnia to
>bring and end to the practice.

>However, even if there were some truth to the allegations, what
>seems to be happening is that the feminists are prepared to
>sacrifice the lives of young American men in order to protect the
>virtue of women.

Same as it ever was.

I think it's time for the combat-ready women to be sent over.
("Fighters in the seventh feminist brigade report capturing large 
segments of Bosnia today and restoring freedom of choice...")
But just be sure we have the girls back by Christmas.

[flag for the sarcasm-impaired]

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
From: kartik@hls.com (Kartik Chandrasekhar)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Vasectomies
Date: 21 Dec 1992 08:57:57 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

Hi,

Keith Garrard writes:

> Oh Don, how could you or any man even consider getting a vasectomy?
> As a man, I feel that the spermal excrement is at the essence of
> my experience as a man.  Most of the women I used to date really
> enjoyed the excitement of seeing me spray my "love juices" over their
> pulsating bodies.  How a man can even think of depriving himself of
> that pleasure, is beyond me.

	I think your fear is  unjustified.  In a vasectomy only 
the vessels which carry the sperms from the testicles known as the 
'Vas deference' are tied and blocked. 

The body and content of the seminal fluid is mainly provided by other 
glands such as the prostrate which are unaffected by a vasectomy.
Thus you can 'spray' all you want (the same volume) after a vasectomy 
without much of a difference except that you will 'spraying' 'blanks'. 
It does not affect your potency in any other way.

	The above is based on my general reading and I would gladly stand
corrected if somebody with experience or authority in this area
would state otherwise.

	So guys lets not scare the few men who take it upon themselves
to provide a safe (and mostly permanent) method of contraception even 
though it means minor surgery for them.

kartik


Newsgroups: soc.men
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: under siege
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 05:50:28 GMT

wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie) writes:
>mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>>that we can't even *DISCUSS* violence against women, because people raise
>>the big, red SEXIST flag and level accusations of misandry.  It would be

>	You're perfectly welcome to discuss violence aganst women.  

Good.

>But
>please don't coming storming over to soc.men with "You awful men are
>so violent and you hurt all us poor women NOW WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO 
>ABOUT IT YOU STINKING SAVAGES???".   

Well, I haven't yet, and I certainly don't intend to in the future.  Okay?

>	Try something less, well, violent next time.  

Did I do something at all, well, violent this time?

rini
Xref: sparky soc.men:22033 alt.feminism:6738
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Date: 3 Jan 93 06:43:11 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: soc.men,alt.feminism
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

In article <1993Jan2.205430.10619@panix.com> 
gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>It's a different issue.  Education and jobs involving
>mathematics are manifestly social constructions.  Longevity
>isn't (unless we socially knock a lot of people off).

Really?!

Have you ever thought about the following possibilities:

1) Men are under social pressure not to show any weakness, and
   therefore they seek medical help much later; sometimes too late.

2) Men are under more pressure to be successful in work; extra
   pressure can kill men younger.

3) Men are under pressure to take more risky works.

4) Older women have more money than older men and therefore they
   have access to better medical care.

5) There is more public assistance to women than men, and therefore
   poor women get better medical care.
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Feminist group disrupts men's meeting
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 11:31:01 GMT

In article <1hnvflINNeh4@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> (kamchar@ibm.cl.msu.edu (SunCat)) writes:
)In article <1992Dec22.225556.13411@rat.csc.calpoly.edu>,
)dgross@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu (Dave Gross) wrote:
)> 
)> Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive
)> From: New Liberation News Service <nlns@igc.apc.org>
)> Subject: NLNS: Feminists Integrate Men-Only Rape Talk
)> Message-ID: <1992Dec22.132450.23326@mont.cs.missouri.edu>
)> Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 13:24:50 GMT
)> 
)> Feminists Integrate Men-Only Rape Talk
)
)The title implies that somebody has done something wrong.  I thought I
)might read about something actually bad like Doubiagio's (sp?) vicious
)attack on Robert Bly in _Ms._ earlier this year.  The text does not support
)the implication made in the title.  
)
)If we are to believe the text, women entered a meeting of a public
)organization, held on public property and presented information.  So what? 
)This is protected by Florida's Sunshine law and I am sure everyone would
)like to have such protection, at least when it protects oneself.  If you
)fear information what the hell are you doing on USENET?

Actually, I hope some men's group decides to 'Integrate' a woman-only
NOW meeting about rape.  If the particular statistics that the 'feminists'
were distributing about rape were anything like the one's I've seen, there is
a *lot* to criticize about them.  The men's group could go in and
distribute their literature criticizing the NOW statistics.  (If Koss
was one of their sources, which seems likely as it is mentioned that she
has recived support from NOW, she's one of the sources that I mentioned
as being easy to criticize).

I'm not holding my breath, but this is a great opportunity to turn the tables
a bit - IMO.  The specific idea of visiting NOW might fail on the public/
private distinction, however.
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Subject: Re: Seperatists etc.
Date: 24 Dec 92 03:22:48 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <3182@devnull.mpd.tandem.com> dwelch@mpd.tandem.com (Dan Welch) writes:
>In article <MUFFY.92Dec19100433@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>In article <lj6nmnINN8jo@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums) writes:
>>>Face it, you put a bunch of computer
>>>nerds in a room, and it will likely turn to tech talk.  If women are
>>>there, those same conversations often don't occur -- different topics
>>>are discussed.

Ummm...are you assumming that the set of "computer nerds" and the set
of "women" will not intersect? 

Speaking as a woman who is a computer nerd (ie, part of the intersection :)
I find tech talk very common in social situations (and get regularily 
chewed out by non-techies for it :). 

One of my "do I really want to date this guy" tests is, A) how does he
handle me talking tech and B) do I want to put up with this reaction very
much?

>>Absolutely false, in my experience.

Me too, Muffy, but then you're in the intersection with me!!

>Absolutely *true*, though, in mine.  In fact, I get pressure from women

Techie women or non-techie women?

>to *not* talk about technical stuff, even if I have an inclination to.
>I have been subjected to any number of glares and impatient gestures when
>co-workers and I discuss computers around non-computer-literate women;
>no such thing happens around non-computer-literate men.  

You lucky stiff. That's where all the computer-tolerant non-computer-literate
men are; Dan's got them hidden somewhere!!!! Where where where???  Share,
please!!!

>The most common
>thing heard: "Oh, God, they're talking computers, again," accompanied by
>a roll of the eyes.

I get this from both genders. Gee, wonder why the number of non-techie
friends (of both genders) I have is dwindling and dwindling...

-jen

Xref: sparky soc.men:22081 alt.abortion.inequity:6275 alt.feminism:6778
From: 01fortec@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited
Date: 3 Jan 93 23:47:02 -0400
Distribution: na
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada


This is my first time on this group, but it looks interesting. I'm assuming
that the discussion centers on American law, but I'm pretty sure that
Canadian law runs parallel. (any Canadians on this group, feel free to correct
this error in assumption, if it exists).

In article <1i7uneINN7pt@gap.caltech.edu>, peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
> 
>>In article <1i4ul0INNjf6@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>>requiring a woman to notify anyone of 
>>>her pregnancy is a violation of her privacy.
> 
>>Its not a violation of her privacy if you intend the result of her actions,
>>and the result of that pregnancy, to impact on SOMEONE ELSE'S financial
>>future.
> 
> It is not the pregnancy that affects "someone else's" financial future.
> It is the birth.
> 

Splitting hairs. If the lady is pregnant and intends to bring the pregnancy
to term, then any prospective action on behalf of the child will affect the
financial future of the father. The plus/minus 8 months of warning might not
mean much to many, but would allow the father time to set up some kind of
financial plan prior to being saddled with the costs. He could also cut and
run. This, however, doesn't seem to matter on how much warning he gets, but
is more determined by the person he is.

>>Women should be free to keep from men the fact that they are pregnant,
>>presumably to keep them from influencing their decision on whether or not to
>>bear the child.
> 
> At this point the men has no *legal* way to force the woman's decision
> on whether of not to bear the child.  So what good does it do to 
> legislate that the woman must tell him about the pregnancy?  (Besides
> the obvious questions of enforceability of such legislation....)
> 
Enforceability hasn't really been a hamper to the passing of a law in the 
past. I don't see why it would now or in the future.

>>However, those same women should be able to bill the man for the result of
>>>her decision<, without his input, and without his concern.
> 
> Strictly speaking, it is not the woman that bills the man.  Child support
> is ordered by the state on behalf of the child.
> 
Comes out to the same thing, really. It is rare that the state initiates 
action on behalf of a child without the word from someone.

> -- 
> 
>                                                 --  Michal
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Of course there's no reason!  


And on that note, a question: does the father have the legal right to sue
for custody/visiting rights/anything else with regards to the child? Seems
to me that plopping a child support suit out of left field leaves an 
implied state of abandonment on the father, even though he didn't know the
score until the writ. Would this leave him at a disadvantage in court?

Joe
01fortec@ac.dal.ca

Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
From: pepke@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Date: 27 Dec 92 19:09:09 GMT
Reply-To: pepke@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: Florida State University, but I don't speak for them

In article <1992Dec23.202607.14264@news.cs.indiana.edu> alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu (Amy Young Leith) writes:
>
>I wanted to scream when Ted Bundy said the usual, "Pornography *made*
>me do it" thing.  "Made" you, eh?  You don't have a brain large enough
>to think for yourself, so seeing nude women made you want to kill
>women, eh?  Some logic here, big boy.  

I agree that this was a bogus excuse.  However, there is no question that
Ted Bundy was a skillful manipulator, and there is no question that the 
assertion worked.  There are quite a few people alive who think that Ted
Bundy is an example of the evil effects of pornography.  One time I was in
Northern California, I saw "Are you Ted Bundy?" spraypainted on the wall of
an "adult" book store.  The assertion didn't quite work well enough for 
Bundy, though.

I have lived in the town where Bundy did the crimes that got him executed 
since about a year after he did them.  Few people know this and fewer care, but
Tallahasse has relatively tough anti-pornography legislation.  It is illegal
to sell Hustler magazine within the city limits, let alone any hard-core 
printed material.  For a brief time hard-core video tapes were generally 
available (although, of course, home video playing postdates Bundy), but the 
state attorney sent threatening letters to all the stores and got most of them
to stop.

-EMP
Newsgroups: soc.men,misc.legal,ba.singles,soc.singles,soc.women
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Pre-Sex Contract
X-To: BOB BECKER
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 00:23:00 GMT

bob@netcom.com (Bob Becker) writes...
>In article <1992Dec18.063654.9388@netcom.com> rohwerwd@netcom.com (Mr. Tickle M
>nster) writes:
>>     Here is some more arguments for my point of view.

>GET A CLUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am starting to notice something of a flaming rivalry among the folks at
Netcom... If so, could you people please keep your flames in the local
newsgroups?

Thanks.


>99% of the people on here think you're an ignorant jerk.

Apparently not...

The large number of Male Choice activists on the Internet would probably like
to disagree with you.  Still, what "99% of the people here" probably DO think,
is that these flame wars between the Netcom folk, are becoming rather tiresome
and should be kept to the local newsgroups on Netcom, or in private e-mail.


>Nobody is going to use a pre-sex contract.

Perhaps not, but his advocacy of it, doesn't make him an "ignorant jerk".

At any rate, are you angry with his definition of the problem which makes
such contracts seemingly necessary, or do you not even agree that a problem
exists?

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Gravity: It's more than just a fragrance.  It's the LAW!"
   - Will Steeves, President, GOiDS "R" We, Inc.

 * SLMR 2.1a * This computer is a loan ; my Cray is in the shop...
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: "Amy Young Leith" <alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: How come?
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 15:36:47 -0500

In article <4439@unisql.UUCP> wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie) writes:
>	How come if you go out to lunch with a bunch of men, you get 
>the check and it's, like, forty bucks so you go "Right, 10 bucks each,
>I'll leave the tip" but if you go out to lunch with a bunch of *women*
>it's, like, "Well, *I* had the chopped liver and the small ice tea so
>I owe $4.97" and "*I* didn't have any dessert so I only owe $3.23" and
>so on until you're waiting for someone to whip out the ol' Hewlett-Packard
>with 59 programmable functions and figure it out to the 9th decimal
>place?  Why is that, huh?

Maybe you're hanging out with a bunch of penny pinchers?  

I don't normally do this, nor do the people I know do it.  It's
normally a split it up and let's get out of here thing.  If it's just
two of us, a friend and I who commonly go out and such, its, "I'll pay
this time, you can treat next."  I do this most frequently.  It's easier, and
it's nice to go out and not have to worry about paying, because you did
last time. 

If I went to dinner with someone and I had the $4.50 taco salad and
they had the $18.00 lobster tail special, then yes, I would compute
the ballpark of what I owed.  But in most cases things are pretty
even.

amy

-- 
alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu for personal mail
			    All business mail to alyoung@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Dislcaimer:I only speak for myself.  Anyone who thinks differently is a fool.
			(This means NOT my employer!!)
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: jwg@sedv1.acd.com ( Jim Grey)
Subject: Re: shaving
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 14:55:07 GMT

In article <BzpwtE.HrJ@encore.com> aaldrich@encore.com (Al Aldrich) writes:
 (lots of deletia)
>As to why men shave.. I also have no clue. I have heard that most men
>prefer the `clean' feeling of a shaved face.. is this really true, or
>do we just conform to convention?
>
>al


I shave because I look stupid with whiskers.  The hairs on my face are too 
sparse.  Of course, they're jet black, so I have five o'clock shadow at
round 9 am.  If somebody comes up with permanent, painless facial hair
removal, I'm the first in line.

jim grey
jwg@acd4.acd.com



Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
From: levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine)
Subject: Re: Damned Souls (was Re: Version Five)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 18:30:10 GMT

gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:

>The following article was rejected from soc.feminism.

>In article <1hkqjdINNj7d@agate.berkeley.edu> 
>levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:

>>Let me add, present a believable case (*with details*) and I'll believe it.  

>I don't want to play the game of "show me all your life for a
>discussion on the net,"

What's wrong with asking for specifics? I certainly *won't* take a
position for or against "affirmative action," (or most other policies)
*in general*. 

>but I can show a case, that you can check in 
>your library, to show how affirmative action really works, especially
>when it is implemented by liberals.

>Take for example the case of Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. in La.
>Under government pressure the company used different criteria for
>promotions of blacks and whites.  Whites had to have more years
>on the job before they could have a promotion.

>So Brian F. Weber, the son of a grocer who started to work in 1968
>saw it as a discrimination and sued.  His point was that a quota which
>is based on race and not on class or education is just a discrimination.
>All the courts till the Supreme Court agreed.  In the Supreme 
>Court one of the justices (Potter Stewart) pointed out that court
>should decide if the law lets an employer "discriminate against
>some white people."  

>The very liberal Supreme Court of 1979 decided 7-2 that the answer is
>yes, and all the liberals celebrated one more victory in the fight
>against racism - the white son of a grocer lost!

>Now try to answer just one question:

>Did, by your criteria, Brian F. Weber was discriminated against?

>Please try to answer yes or no.

Maybe. :-)

>Hillel                                        gazit@cs.duke.edu

From the evidence you give, Weber sounds like he has a good case.

However, I've heard of other cases where the evidence for affirmative
action is a lot more reasonable.

Lenore Levine
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
From: dmcanzi@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Feminist group disrupts men's meeting
Keywords: Campus NOW Brownshirts, Enough for Dinesh D'Souza's next book
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 18:35:38 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.225556.13411@rat.csc.calpoly.edu> dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Dave Gross) writes:
>	Despite charges that NOW was violating the men's right to freedom of
>association, it turned out that the women were the ones illegally being
>blocked from entry, since under the Sunshine Law "stricktly speaking, it had
>to be open to everyone that wanted to go" Paul Gates, a research assistant at
>the Brecher Center for Freedom of Information was quoted as saying in the
>*Alligator* two days later.

No doubt this "Sunshine Law" also permits men to invade "women-only" meetings.

-- 
David Canzi
Xref: sparky soc.men:22058 alt.feminism:6767
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Date: 4 Jan 1993 00:32:26 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:

>4) Older women have more money than older men and therefore they
>   have access to better medical care.

Not so.  Elderly men are usuallly better off than elderly women.

Eg, the Economist (12/26/92, p. 39):
In the next century some of society's poorest people will be elderly
women...

-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism