HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dsvoss@isr.harvard.edu (Steve Voss)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Feminists ignore Cosmetics?
Date: 2 Sep 92 15:16:03 GMT
Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

Carol mentions the old saying that women dress for other women.  I just
wanted to add my two cents...  I think this is definitely true.  I
often ask male friends whether they like when women wear makeup, and
I have received unanimously negative responses.  Same from my lesbian and
Bi female friends.  Of course, this is
selection bias -- I would expect the friends I have chosen not to be
representative.  Nevertheless, with so many wo(men) simply preferring that
a woman be herself, I am left suspecting that cosmetics are a
collectivist conspiracy intended to keep all women equal by making
them all look fake.
From: benjamin@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu (Benjamin Renaud)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Cosmetics and the Homeless
Date: 1 Sep 92 18:10:26 GMT
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory

In article <27441@life.ai.mit.edu> benjamin@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu (Benjamin Renaud) writes:
==In article <1992Aug27.161015.1@mdcbbs.com=, rivero@mdcbbs.com says:
==-
==-  As to the economy, consider this. Last year, American women spent
==-50 billion dollars on beauty products and services, at a time when
==-their fellow human beings, including other women were sleeping in alleys
==-and eating out of trashcans (dinner at McDumpster's).  
=
=So fucking what? Let me rephrase this. Would you have the same sort of
=objection about the billions spent on music? entertainment? Nice
=things for kids (that they don't -really- need) on ART? NO of course
=no. Why? because all these are things that improve one's life and to
=put beauty in your life is a marvelous thing. Lots of people think
=that being beautiful is an important thing, just like living in a
=beautiful place is. Of course homelessness and poverty is obscene and
=vile and the shame of our society. BUT IT HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO
=WITH HOMELESSNESS.

It refers here to cosmetics :).... i just needed to say that.

==-That 50 billion
==-dollars worth of human labor and raw materials did NOT improve our schools.
==-It did NOT repair our bridges, nor did it keep our emergancy rooms open.
==-No products resulted from that 50 billion that can be sold internationally at
==-a profit. No new industries or jobs were created from the 50 billion dollar
==-investment. that 50 billion dollars is gone forever, literally washed down
==-the drain.
=
=So is a performance at the opera or the madison square gardens
=
==-  Coincidentally, that 50 billion would clean up the mess from the S&L
==-meltdown, not to mention help clean up the mess we'll have next year
==-when the main commercial banks start dropping like flies.
==-  In the years since Reagan first took office, this non productive
==-expenditure adds up to roughly half a trillion dollars. That's 1/7 of the
==-total National Debt right there.
==- We spend more on beauty than we spend on Space Exploration, the Environment,
==-or AIDS Research.
==-  That SERIOUS enough for you man?
=
=You (and I) are upset at the system. Let me look good if i want and
=let's do a revolution.
From: DURFLING@AC.GRIN.EDU (Finagle, etc. Durflinger,Edward M)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: HELP FIND TAMMY ZYWICKI'S KILLER
Date: 4 Sep 1992 16:08:49 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

        This is an update to the information about Tammy Zywicki that I
recently posted to this network.  The body in Missouri was indeed
identified as being that of Grinnell senior Tammy Zywicki. I post this
information in the hopes that concerned people will continue the effort in
the hopes of bringing Tammy's killer to justice and making our roads a
safer place for both women and men.

        The letter makes references to a poster containing a police drawing
of the truck that Tammy was last seen getting into.  If you would volunteer
to post these drawings in your area, send your address or fax # to me and I
will get you copies of the material.

Thank you;
Ed Durflinger
durfling@ac.grin.edu
_____________________________________________________________________________
						4 September 1992
						Grinnell College


	YOU CAN STILL HELP IN THE SEARCH FOR TAMMY'S KILLER!!!


	Tammy Zywicki, a 21 year old Grinnell College senior, was abducted 
on Interstate 80 in Illinois, near LaSalle, on Sunday afternoon, 23 August.  
Her body was recently found along the side of a road in southwest Missouri, 
stabbed seven times in the chest and once in the right arm.  While the Search 
for Tammy is over, the Grinnell College community is continuing its efforts to 
find the person that is responsible for this horrific crime.

	The enclosed poster was the last one released, before Tammy's body 
was identified.  The truck is a white semi, with diagonal stripes of rustish 
color. 
        This truck has been identified as a vehicle that was parked in front of 
Tammy's car on I-80.  While the driver is NOT a suspect, the police are 
attempting to contact the driver in an attempt to discover what transpired 
on that Sunday afternoon of her disappearance.  If you have any information 
pertaining to the Tammy Zywicki case, or know anything at all concerning the 
truck, please call the Illinois State Police at either of the following numbers:

	1-815-224-1150   or 	1-800-U-HELP-ME 
 

	Please post this poster and keep your eyes and ears open for any 
information pertaining to this case.

			Thank you very much,

			The Grinnell College Community
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Some Politically Incorrect questions
Date: 26 Aug 92 22:27:20 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA

In article <1992Aug24.143705.1@mdcbbs.com> rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:
>In article <1992Aug22.205758.18945@leland.Stanford.EDU>, farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>> Do you know lots of men who are looking for a woman they can support
>> for the rest of their lives?  I don't.  In fact, most of the hetero
>> men I know expect their wives to work and often express dismay that
>> the wives don't (or won't) make more money.
>
>  I have to take exception to that remark. While there is nothing wrong with
>both partners wanting to contribute to their financial future, NO man who
>is planning a family expects the woman to work in such a relationship.
>Neither would he deny her her right to work once the child rearing chores
>could either be shared or left in the care of a housekeeper. 

NO man?  How have you come to that conclusion? 

If so many men don't expect the wife to work and bear children, why
are there so many working mothers?  Because the mothers want to be
working outside the home (not likely when something like 51% of
working mothers in a survey in '91 said they'd like to quit work and
stay home)?

Perhaps you're playing with the word "expect."  The idealistic husband
assumes he'll make enough money that he doesn't expect his wife to
work, but economic reality soon crushes those dreams?

>  On the other hand, after all the feminist demands to have equal pay,
>what's the problem with their accepting equal financial responsability.

Nothing at all.  As long as the men realize they need to do half of
the childcare, half of housework, half of the looking after
relatives...

>> One of my female friends told me the following story of a man she was
>> dating.
>> 
>> Man:  So, how much do Ph.D.s in your field make?
>> 
>> Woman:  Something like $50-60K a year.
>> 
>> Man:  That's all?!  Well, I suppose you could do some consulting work
>> to make more money.
>> 
>
>  So, women have been doing this to men for ages, evaluating them as success
>objects, and treating them like walking wallets. Now that the same
>objectification is traveling the other way, only now it's a problem?
>Warning! Double Standard Elert! Warning! Double Standard Elert!

You and I (thank God!) know very different people.  I haven't
encountered one woman who asked the man she was dating how much he
earned or expressed dismay and suggested he could earn more by doing
consulting work (or take a second job, etc.).

What I'm seeing is more than a few men expecting women to bear
children, keep house, AND earn a salary comparable to their own.  Do
you think that's fair?
Xref: sparky soc.men:15878 soc.women:16106
From: starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu (aaron greenwood)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Hating Men with Full Force
Date: 23 Aug 92 19:59:22 GMT
Article-I.D.: galaxy.21922
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: University of California, Riverside

In article <2316@unet.UUCP> linda@wendy.net.com (Linda Hill) writes:
>
>Well I didn't see any outrage.  All I saw was a quoted article.  Not knowing
>the poster I initially assumed support for the quote.  :-)
>
>The point I got from Brian's post was "No wonder women hate men.  Look at what
>women have gone through at the hand's of men."  That may not be what he meant,
>but it sure hit home for me.
>
>linda@net.com

Consider the quote from Jacsun Shah, a reporter from the Houston Chronicle
one more time.

>->   "Yes, I am a man hater, yes, I am a feminist. and why not?
>->    Women are dying . They die every day, at the hands of men.
>->    Men ... beat them, rape them, dismember them. Hell yes, I
>->    hate men ... To all of you women out there, I say _hate_.
>->    You have every right to ... I knew the kindest thing I could
>->    do for the women of this world is to hate men with full force."

The words that come to mind are terrorist and fanatic.  I think they fit
Ms. Shah's character very well indeed. And like a terroist she would like
to vilify, fragment, and distroy for no reason but an unhealthy emotion.
Her statements are the product of a sever personallity disorder.  They
are without merit.

Her remarks are typical of hate groups.  If hate speech were an sport
Ms. Shah would get the gold.  

To take a piece of garbage ( the person as well as her remarks ) and lionize
her is to belittle both women and men. 

We should save our praise for women of character, women who have made
something of themselves and women who are positive examples of fully
developed human beings.  There are millions of women who would fit
that description like the the athelete that posted about being the
first female to play collegiate ice hockey.  Or my sister-in-law who owns
her on software and systems consulting company, or my wife who is an RN
in a Neo-natal intensive care unit keeping babies alive, or the migrant
farmworker's daughter who for some reason was able to change high schools
over and over and still get a full boat to Stanford, or the single mother
who does what she has to do in order to raise and support her children, or
any of a million other stories.

starbuck

Life is much deeper than feminist thought.
From: ivan@spider.co.uk (Ivan Reid)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Unisex bathrooms
Date: 4 Sep 92 12:55:22 GMT
Organization: Spider Systems Limited, Edinburgh, UK.

In article <1992Sep3.151012.21340@cbfsb.cb.att.com> colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:
>
>About men using the women's - only saw this once, but I think it's
>very instructive.  many years ago, on a long road trip from NYC 
>back to college in New Hampshire, a car load of us stopped for lunch.
>After that we went around the side to use the bathroom.  There were
>two bathrooms, one MEN, one WOMEN - although each was a one person
>bathroom that you went into and locked yourself in before doing your
>business.  So why one MEN and one WOMEN?  Why not two bathrooms and
>you do your stuff?  Anyway, there were NO women present at the time.
>NONE!  But there were 12 guys all hopping on one foot outside the
>MEN door.  So we all looked at each other and we took our turns in
>the ladies room (alone) and went on our way.  The question is not
>why we did that - but why the other guys didn't.

In this situation, it makes a lot of sense to use whatever toilet is
available (note especially that each bathroom was a single cubicle). I
was interested to read earlier in this group, someone claiming that it
was *illegal* for men to use women's toilets. Anyone know the full
legal position? I avoid using women's toilets out of a sense of
propriety, and not wanting to embarass or alarm any women in them :^)
, but maybe there's a legal issue too? Does it vary between US States? What's the position in the UK?
-- 
Ivan Hans Mark Reid                      Management Information Systems Analyst
"Information is Power ..."                                   Spider Systems Ltd
vox: (+44 31) 554 9424                                 Spider Park, Stanwell St
fax: (+44 31) 554 0649                              Edinburgh EH6 5NG, Scotland
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: rfs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (richard.f.j.soyack)
Subject: Re: Adults, Children and sex
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 13:22:25 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.042444.5806@cbnewsc.cb.att.com> chapin@cbnewsc.cb.att.com ( Tom Chapin ) writes:
>Rich Soyack writes:
>>I talked about not buying what sounded like the NAMBLA party line.
>
>When Joe McCarthy found his lies refuted, he retreated into his
>second line of defense, claiming that his opponents were 
>"fellow travelers" who followed the "party line" even if they
>weren't card-carrying members.  Now we see someone else following
>his footsteps.
>
>I grew up with emotional abusers, and recognize their filth only
>too well.  I'm calling you on it, Rich.  You are an abuser.  Just
>because you may not have committed sexual abuse, you are obviously
>not free of the need to commit abuse.  You may be able to manipulate
>codependents, but I'm not one anymore .  Your form of abuse is just as
>dirty as that of a sexual abuser, and in my personal opinion even
>more so since you have chosen a form of abusiveness which our
>society and legal system have not yet found an effective means to
>combat.  But those of us who have experienced it, and then taken
>the years to reflect on what happened to them, know both its power
>and the need to confront abusers whenever they show themselves.
>You may be able to succeed in abusing or cowing others, but I've
>seen too many abusers clothing themselves in self-righteousness
>to sit and watch quietly any longer.
>
>Enough of your perverted references to NAMBLA, Rich.  Stop your abuse.
>
>-- 
>	     tom chapin                tjc@hrcce.att.com

Interesting, first you sketch in broad terms what you are
going to say in your article, then you say it.  Your attach on
me is laughable.  I questioned your motives in arguing that
line of your's and you accuse me of being an abuser.  You now
say you were abused, but previously you painted yourself as
being so strong as a child that you could handle the excesses
of authority?

I wonder about your goal in arguing that children do not have
to fear sexual approaches of adults.
From: rfs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (richard.f.j.soyack)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Adults, Children and sex
Date: 4 Sep 92 17:05:40 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnewsh.1992Sep4.170540.1003
Organization: AT&T

Actually Tom, you are the one arguing that the laws we have
are wrong, so the burden of specifying age, and agruing why
they are wrong is one you.  You say that the laws should be
changed, so I feel perfectly justified in asking what you have
to gain by such a change in the laws.  Other than some
bluster, and some huffing and puffing I have seen nothing to
address either of these points.  I have also never seen you
directly answer anyone's question.
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Adults, Children and sex
Date: 2 Sep 1992 00:26:33 GMT
Organization: Hmmm
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

In article <n5jn=m.boserj@netcom.com> boserj@netcom.com (Jeffrey Boser) writes:
 danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:
 >( Tom Chapin ) writes:
 > If those who were not scarred were to give up sex, would that heal
 > those who were scarred?  If men who are not rapists were to give up
 > sex with women, would their sacrifice protect women from rape?  No,
 > because the problem is not the sexual activity, but the coercion
 > used to get it. 
 >
 >This ignores the fact that older adults/younger children
 >sex is not a basic human need.
 >Dano
 
 It does not.  Sex is not a basic human need period.  On top of this,
 I sure as hell wanted sex with adults when i was a younger child,
 and im not a deviant.

I'm not saying you are a deviant.
Yes, sex is a basic human need.
No, adult/child sex is not a basic human need.
Yes, younger children occasionally want to have sex with adults.
Younger children also occasionally want to hit their siblings.
This does not mean we should indulge children their whims.

Dano


Xref: sparky soc.men:15948 soc.women:16155 alt.feminism:615
From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Feminists ignore Cosmetics?
Date: 4 Sep 92 18:20:59 GMT
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

In article <1992Sep3.213637.17317@burrhus.harvard.edu> dsvoss@isr.harvard.edu (Steve Voss) writes:
>Jeff Dalton asks whether my friends explicitly considered minimal
>makeup versus no makeup.  My answer is yes, I phrased the question
>that way -- what do they prefer. 

"What do you prefer -- makeup or none?"  Was that more or less it?

But perhaps they haven't seen, or didn't remember to consider,
some of the possibilities for "makeup".  For instance, maybe
they actually prefer a little eyeliner but whenever they actually
notice makeup it's more than that.  That is, there's a look they
like better, but they don't know it involves makeup (or don't
think of it that way).

>You know, women in royal families used to wear makeup constantly, and
>very thickly.  Academics have questioned whether their faces had rotted
>underneath the many layers (which never were removed, apparently).
>steve

That's so gross.

-- jd
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: boserj@netcom.com (Jeffrey Boser)
Subject: Re: Adults, Children and sex
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 92 04:56:40 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:
>boserj@netcom.com (Jeffrey Boser) writes:
> danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:
> >( Tom Chapin ) writes:
> > If those who were not scarred were to give up sex, would that heal
> > those who were scarred?  If men who are not rapists were to give up
> > sex with women, would their sacrifice protect women from rape?  No,
> > because the problem is not the sexual activity, but the coercion
> > used to get it. 
> >
> >This ignores the fact that older adults/younger children
> >sex is not a basic human need.
> >Dano
> 
> It does not.  Sex is not a basic human need period.  On top of this,
> I sure as hell wanted sex with adults when i was a younger child,
> and im not a deviant.
>
>I'm not saying you are a deviant.
>Yes, sex is a basic human need.

No it is not.  Virgins can live long and lead productive lives.

>No, adult/child sex is not a basic human need.

Not any more than any other sex is a basic need.

>Yes, younger children occasionally want to have sex with adults.
>Younger children also occasionally want to hit their siblings.
>This does not mean we should indulge children their whims.

Why not?  I learned alot from getting into a scruff or two as
a kid.  I learned that fighting aint glamorous, I learned what
fighting meant, and I learned to figure out the why before I
fight for it.

I dont think fighting is wrong.  Conflict forms the basis for
so much of our lives, competition is especially strong in the
sex arena.

The point being, what makes you god?  And why must you punish
two consenting individuals for doing somethign that hasnt hurt
anybody?  And dont say it has.  We have given you specific
examples of cases where consent was clear, no coersion was
evident, and harm was not caused by the act itself.

Your logic can just as easily applied to masturbating children,
preventing them from possibly hurting themselves emotionally.

>Dano


.....jeff

Xref: sparky soc.men:15498 soc.women:15788 alt.feminism:129
From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Feminists ignore Cosmetics?
Date: 26 Aug 92 17:22:41 GMT
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

>>| In the Middle East, women are raised to always cover their faces with  |
>>| viels. Modern feminists point to this practice as proof of how these   |
>>| women are oppressed. Yet here in the Western (so called) Civilized     |
>>| countries, women are raised to cover their faces with cosmetics, to    |
>>| the tune of 50 billion dollars a year. In this regard, American women  |
>>| are just as oppressed as their eastern sisters while having to pay far |
>>| more for the priviledge.

"Just as oppressed"?  Really?  Is colouring one's face "just as
oppressive" as covering it?  Is there no difference in the two cases
if a woman fails to follow the "required" practice?

>Read some Naomi Wolf sometime.

Does Naomi Wolfe use cosmetics?  She doesn't seem to avoid jewelry...
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
From: bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician)
Subject: The Price of Cosmetics
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 92 09:12:08 GMT
Organization: Society for the Preservation of E. coli

In article <92244.203851JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu> Joy Haftel <JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.161015.1@mdcbbs.com>, rivero@mdcbbs.com says:
>>  As to the economy, consider this. Last year, American women spent
>>50 billion dollars on beauty products and services

>Don't know where you got your figures, but assuming that they are
>right (and mine is right), with the US. population at 240 mil. and
>half of them women (120 mil) then that comes out to roughly 410 $
>per woman.

Ummm...have you priced cosmetics lately?  They are *very* expensive.
To get about a 3 months supply of base, matching pressed powder, 4
eyeshadows, 2 eyebrow pencils, a mascara, two lipsticks, two blushes,
an eye pencil, and a lip pencil can easily run you over $200 (can you
tell I sat through that Victoria Jackson makeup infomercial?  Do I
believe her?  Having spent a goodly sum for 1.12 ozs of base for my
own makeup kit (I'm an actor), yes.)

No, most people don't buy these things all at once...they buy them
one-at-a-time when they need them.  They also buy stuff they never use
again (my mother's makeup drawer was *filled* with stuff she thought
she'd like, used once or twice, and never again.)  Trends come through
and people buy one or two items of that line only to have to buy new
things when those colors aren't "in fashion" anymore.

So I can easily see women paying $410 bucks a year on cosmetics.

And the population of the US was listed at 252 million, last time I
checked (not that it changes the amount much...397 instead of 417.)

-- 
Brian Evans                |     "Bad mood, bad mood...Sure I'm in a bad mood!
bevans@carina.unm.edu      |      I haven't had sex...*EVER!*" -- Virgin Mary
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: mcsweinberg@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Q
Date: 31 Aug 92 12:45:00 -0600
Organization: Memphis State University

Is this group for MEN only?
Just curious.

Rai.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I could do it forever and ever                    Raina Weinberg
Give me an hour to kiss you                   Memphis State University
Walk through heaven's door I'm sure              Memphis, Tennessee
We don't need a doctor to feel much better
Let me in                                   MCSWEINBERG@MSUVX1.MEMST.EDU
Forever and ever and ever and ever"                                     
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support