HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dwelch@mpd.tandem.com (Dan Welch)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Seperatists etc.
Date: 21 Dec 92 17:24:37 GMT
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: Tandem Computers (MPD) Austin, TX

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.
>
>Absolutely false, in my experience.

Absolutely *true*, though, in mine.  In fact, I get pressure from 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.  The most common
thing heard: "Oh, God, they're talking computers, again," accompanied by
a roll of the eyes.

Daniel Welch
----
"The bottom line of the First Amendment is that pornography stays.  Our bottom
line is that pornography goes.  Eventually, we will win."

			- Catherine MacKinnon
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.child-support
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: I HAD NO CHOICE ( was: Biological reasons etc...
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 16:01:46 GMT

In article <43XXVB1w165w@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca> lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca writes:
>karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>
>> In article <athos-111292122148@kip2-30.apple.com> athos@apple.com (Rick Eames
>> >In article <1992Dec11.144451.8946@bmw.mayo.edu>, bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce
>> >Cameron) wrote:
>> >
>> >> So, are you objecting to supporting the children you wanted, or
>> >> just pissed off that their mother left you?
>> >
>> >Actually, it sounds like he's upset that he got a RAW DEAL from the state. 
>> >He not only lost his house and his kids, but he also gets to lose a big
>> >chunk of his income, keeping him from getting ahead again.  While his
>> >ex-wife gets to live in his house with his kids, he gets to live like a
>> >slave.  How nice.
>> 
> If you are involved with any woman, married or not, you could be the next
>> gentleman in this position.  IT CAN HAPPEN TO YOU GENTS.  
>> 
> What is this? A wee bit of misogyny?  Talk about inflammatory generalizing!!!
> Not ALL women are nasty, just as not all men are assholes.

I think you failed to notice the difference between "CAN" and "WILL."

Would you rail against a woman who said, "Be careful on a first date;
date rape CAN happen to you"?

(Discussions of date rape directed to appropriate newsgroups.)


>...  Please
>  do your part by contemplating the issues --- and possible solutions ---
> with us, and not standing on a platform of such non-productive, destructive,
> and blanket gender-bashing.

Yes.  Bruce Cameron's statement demonstrated blanket gender-bashing:
of men.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
From: pepke@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Distilled Wisdom on M
Date: 3 Jan 93 05:24:09 GMT
Reply-To: pepke@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Organization: Florida State University, but I don't speak for them

In article <1992Dec20.014753.17861@zooid.guild.org> goid@zooid.guild.org (Will Steeves) writes:
>Actually, Eric, there *is* now a male equivalent for a gynaecologist - an
>"andrologist".  I saw one's office at a reproductive health clinic, about
>three years ago.

I'm very glad to hear it.  I haven't seen any locally, though.

-EMP
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: How come?
Date: 23 Dec 92 22:02:40 GMT
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <1992Dec23.182636.2613@linus.mitre.org> cgates@mitre.org (Curt Gates) writes:
>In the current mood of flame throwing, I might as well tell ya that if you 
>were working for two bits on the dollar, or skimming an allowance from the 
>family food budget, you too would worry about pennies. But you knew that 

	Yaaahhhh, I was waiting for someone to say that.  Listen, bub,
this happens when I go out with women who make _lots_ more than me.  I've
never had a job where I've made more than anyone else. I'm certainly not 
the highest paid person at UniSQL...  So don't hand me that old 70 cents
bullshit on this one.  Hell, I'll bet that if I had lunch with Ivanna Trump
she'd tote up the bill to the last fractional cent.  

	And don't y'all think that *men* have families to budget for? 

	Shee-it.

> do men still get the payback from this behavior that they used to get?  

	And what _was_ this hypothetical payback?

Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
From: ematz@world.std.com (Ed Matz)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Feminist group disrupts men's meeting
Keywords: Campus NOW Brownshirts, Enough for Dinesh D'Souza's next book
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 02:11:54 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.225556.13411@rat.csc.calpoly.edu> dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Dave Gross) writes:
>   [lengthy news article deleted]
> . . .
>	The Campus NOW Board editorial states: "Based on our experience with
>men-only groups--fraternities, men's sports, groups of men screaming at us
>from cars--men in such groups frequently and openly display sexist attitudes
>and tend not to object, but rather reward one another for sexist actions.
>Because of this, Campus NOW stands against men-only groups."

Guess this means that men now can "crash" women-only groups -- sororities,
NOW meetings, women's sports, and the like.
It's interesting how easily people can speak out of both sides of their
mouths without knowing they're doing it.   I once listened to a woman
wax poetic in a lengthy tirade against discrimination -- gender and racial --
only to take a quick breath and then wax poetic about the virtues of the
college she'd recently graduated from being women-only -- and proudly so!

If women want an end to men-only clubs and groups, let them lead the
way by banishing women-only clubs and groups.

Ed Matz		ematz@world.std.com


Newsgroups: soc.men
From: rfs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (richard.f.j.soyack)
Subject: Re: shaving
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 16:13:03 GMT

In article <BzpwtE.HrJ@encore.com> aaldrich@encore.com (Al Aldrich) writes:
>
>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?
>

I shave because I like the way it looks and feels.  I had
beards but they annoyed me, now I have a mustache because I
don't like shaving that area of my face and a mustache doesn't
annoy me.

Have fun,
Rich Soyack
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: shaving
Date: 23 Dec 92 19:39:44 GMT
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <BzpwtE.HrJ@encore.com> aaldrich@encore.com (Al Aldrich) writes:
>As to why men shave.. I also have no clue. 

	I shave 'cause my beard is ugly.  It comes in in patches with empty
and sparse spots, and also it's red but my haor (what hair I have left) is
brown...  Looks funny.
Xref: sparky soc.men:21997 alt.feminism:6711
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Mysogynist Bullshit
Date: 2 Jan 93 12:06:08 GMT
Followup-To: soc.men,alt.feminism
Organization: The Immoral Minority

In article <1992Dec30.171309.17092@llyene.jpl.nasa.gov> 
julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas) writes:

>I think it's exactly that -- women have to be twice as sick to be taken
>seriously.  Of course, once you're that ill treatment is much harder
>and takes longer.  

So how comes that men, on average, die 7 years younger?

Anyway, while your theory makes a lot of sense, if one just ignores
reality, here is a piece of reality from CBS News, 1/1/1993

#It is like so many other over crowded county health care clinics
#you see the same faces full of anxiety need and fatigue.
#
#The people who can not pay, who don't have insurance.
#
#What make Lee(sp?) county different is
#the faces you don't see - men and old people.
#Pregnant women, mothers and dependent children are seen.
#All others are been turned away,
#unless they were patients hear before they new policy became effective.
#Practically speaking health care rationing is a fact in a lot of places
#but in some Florida counties now they made it official that
#all patients are not to be considered equal.
#
#Some state officials call it
#The Titanic model, women and children first.

(Note that mothers are seen, but not fathers...)

(Note also that women have the world records in swimming for the longest
time (more body fat), but the law is "women and children first...")

>Julie

Hillel                                              gazit@cs.duke.edu

"In my experience, the usual modus operandi is to demand special protection in
as loud a voice as possible.  Then, when special protection is given, turn
the volume up to 11 and complain that it is patronizing.  It's a fun game, and
it works over and over again."  --  Eric Pepke
Xref: sparky soc.men:21766 soc.women:21883
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: under siege
Date: 23 Dec 92 19:47:34 GMT
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <1992Dec23.165642.6571@midway.uchicago.edu> 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.  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???".   It wounds our poor delicate little
egos, don't ya know.

	Try something less, well, violent next time.  
								wr

oh, gee, how do I get back
up to the header to fix the Newsgroups: line?
Xref: sparky soc.men:22000 alt.feminism:6714
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Date: 2 Jan 93 13:29:59 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: soc.men,alt.feminism
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

In article <1993Jan1.032047.18124@panix.com> 
gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>About the length of lives: men have a higher metabolic rate
>(on the average) than women.  Thus it seems likely that their
>bodies wear out faster.  One could disprove this by showing
>some social arrangement where men lived longer than women,
>other things being equal; but I don't know of one.

1) Through out history, till the 20'th century, men lived longer
   than women.

2) Women after menopause are in a very different hormone balance
   than younger women, but men keep their level of hormones
   much more stable.

3) There are correlation between occupation and death (e.g. heart
   attacks in accountants before April first).

4) Is not it interesting that when women are the losing side (e.g.
   more men learn math), the default assumption is that society
   is to be blamed, and the poor weak women need some compensation,
   but when men are the losing side, the "pro equality people" are
   ready with long explanation why it is just biology...
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Damned Souls (was Re: Version Five)
Date: 28 Dec 92 20:49:01 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: Living In Harmony

In article <BzzF4s.HvA@news.cso.uiuc.edu> 
levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:

>The first young man was not a good communicator and did not present his
>case very well; he also had some very questionable philosophical
>positions. Nevertheless his case had some merit; I've known sexual
>users and predators of both genders myself, and the games they
>play can be quite horrible. But a lot of people jumped on this young
>man. Now, I remember you as *defending* him. Was I wrong?

I mostly stayed out of that debate.  The only thing that seemed to me
*dirty* was his decision to fire a secretary who slept with Frenando.
("The girl had to go..."), and I asked for an explanation why.  He has
never answered that question.

>>It certainly happens, and the Old Boys can get away with that, because
>>the deal you (liberals and feminists) offered to them.  Affirmative 
>>action is a deal that tells them "hire enough women and minorities
>>and then nobody will be able to sue you about discrimination."

>>They took the deal, and that was dirty act on their part.

>>You offered the deal, and defended it for 20 years as "equality,"
>>and this is even a dirtier act your part.

>You are talking about the actions and positions of other people.
>I can't necessarily defend them; 

But that's what you do - you are the one who defends 
affirmative action all over the net.  

>>>Let me add -- that as a middle-aged curmudgeon, I think my chances of 
>>>being hired as anyone's token are slimmer than a snowball's in hell.
>>>(Not to worry though; I suspect I'll do just fine on my own merits.)

>>Don't be so sure on both counts.

>Of what? That my merits will be paid attention to, or that I have
>merit?

If you can be classified as "disabled" then it will be worth to hire
you even if you have no merit - you'll close two affirmative action
slots, and so they will be to hire other people that they really want.

Anyway, if you want to check how will you do on your own merit (fat
chance...) then you can refuse to fill up the affirmative action forms.
This way it will be worth to hire you only if the employer
really needs you.

>Lenore Levine

Hillel                                               gazit@cs.duke.edu

"There's never time to do it right, but there's always time to do it over."
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 21:02:34 GMT

<bob1.725051279@cos> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
><BzMI8D.L4H@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>><bob1.724607266@cos> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:

>>>Don't get me wrong, I don't care whether two people get churched or
>>>not, but there needs to be a commitment, a meeting of minds and
>>>spirit, or what is different about it than two animals rutting in
>>>a field?
>
>>To contrast your image of animals rutting: the person you're supporting
>>suggested cunnilingus as a natural way to preserve a man's reproductive 
>>rights -- is that the kind of "meeting of minds" you're looking for?
>
>Where in hell did you find this in my post? Shit, another Nyikos who
>reads words in the white space!

It's a suggestion Michal made a while back.  You were making your
statements against liberal behavior in the context of her claim
that men who don't know they are fathers are guilty of heinous sin,
and shouldn't have their parental rights protected.

Your romantic/conservative beliefs should be independent of what 
the *law* says about when/if men have parental rights.  Your values
aren't at issue.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
From:  (kamchar@ibm.cl.msu.edu (SunCat))
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Feminist group disrupts men's meeting
Date: 28 Dec 92 22:35:33 GMT
Followup-To: soc.men,alt.feminism
Organization: money sucking university
NNTP-Posting-Host: cc210-6.cl.msu.edu

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?

> as part of the protest. (Later, Assistant Housing Director Vicki Williams, one
> of the women who had physically blocked the door, was quoted in the Alligator
> (the University of Florida mainstream paper) as saying, "I didn't want the
> women they coudn't come into the room.")
> 	NOW distributed leaflets to the all-male audience. The housing 
> officials followed them around taking the leaflets from the men, saying "You
> don't have to keep that." One man said he was told three times that he didn't
> have to keep the flyer.

It seems that Assistant Housing Director Vicki Williams thinks that men are
too stupid to decide for themselves if they want to read some information. 
But even so, it appears that she is more of a kid than a pig.

BTW the last I heard the University of Florida has a compus rape rate
second only to Colorado's.  As I recall, the self-identified feminists
there are mostly for real as there is no time or space for poseurs.

SunCat    kamchar@ibm.cl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: AVRK90@waccvm.corp.mot.com (Kevin Cox)
Subject: Re: A few facts about circumcision
Organization: Motorola
Date: 23 Dec 1992 20:12:18 MST


  >In article <1glhqeINNi59@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu> potts@oit.itd.umich.edu
  >(Paul Potts) writes:
  >
  >   > What they really mean is that Daddy doesn't want to admit to
  >   > himself that he is the one who is "different" by virtue of
  >   > genital mutilation...  and is willing to inflict the same
  >   > treatment on son to justify it.
  >
  >Let's try this one more time...I *don't* consider myself to have been
  >mutilated, and I'm actually *glad* that I *am* circumcised.  I'm also glad
  >that it was done so early in my life that I have no memory of it, and as a
  >result, intend to do the same if our child is a boy.
  >
  >So now...what do you have to say to a person who intends to have his kid
  >circumcised because he looks at his circumcision as *an advantage*?
                                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    WHAT advantage???

  >* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
  >* Keith E Gatling                                  kgatling@mailbox.syr.edu *
  >*          Opinions?  I've got plenty of them.  Just ask my wife!           *
  >* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
From: news@mont.cs.missouri.edu
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Organization: University of Missouri
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 93 15:18:57 CST

In article <1993Jan1.032047.18124@panix.com>
gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
 
>About the length of lives: men have a higher metabolic rate
>(on the average) than women.  Thus it seems likely that their
>bodies wear out faster.  One could disprove this by showing
>some social arrangement where men lived longer than women,
>other things being equal; but I don't know of one.
>--
Women are less likely to develop heart disease prior to menopause
due to the action of estrogen (it retards the build-up of cholesterol in
the arteries). This means that, on the average, men have a 30-40 year
'head start' on diseases of the vascular system, such as stroke, angina,
and general hardening of the arteries. Also, until the last decade or so,
a higher percentage of men than women smoked, which translated into a
higher mortality rate.
Prior to the modern, *sterile* age of obstetrics, the mortality rate
associated with childbirth made the average lifespan of women much lower
than men.
(please add any qualifiers I may have missed! ;) )
Diane
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
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 14:56:48 GMT

In article <726043390@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) 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).


	We *do* socially knock people off.  Men, mostly, with astounding
	regularity.  Men aremuch more likely to thebe victims of a 
	*fatal* assault.  Men are much more likely to commit suicide.  

	Also, car accidents.  These drag the average down.  The whole point 
	is, if a man is careful, he will easily live as long as a woman.  There
	is nothing inherent about men that says they'll die sooner.  

>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.

	All 5 of which are very good points,but I'm sure he'll
	reply with a "#1 is themans problem," and try and defend
	#4 ("he should have saved") and #5 ("they deserve it").


-- 
	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.
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: elvis@netcom.com ('kEvin')
Subject: A Proposal
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 22:28:10 GMT

here it is:

NEVER crosspost between soc.men, soc.women, alt.feminism, etc.



If the article is of interest to several groups which are likely
to pursue different aspects of the original post, post it separately
to each group. Soc.men, which I read, has been inundated with crossposts
from alt.feminism that all followed up a few posts that were relevant
to both groups. Most of this traffic is only germane to alt.feminism.

I realize that this will use more filespace, but it will improve the
readibility of the soc.* groups immensely.


kEvin
Xref: sparky soc.men:21586 alt.abortion.inequity:6084 alt.feminism:6343
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited
Date: 21 Dec 92 18:47:09 GMT

In article <1go33uINN2u9@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>
>>In article <1gg7lvINN5mk@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

>>Are you actually so parochial that you think that any person who
>>has a one-night stand, who breaks up after a year-long relationship,
>>who moves away, or who fails to have the same group of friends as
>>a bed partner,  is incapable of love, responsibility, and decency?
>
>Sorry, Don, but I just don't believe that the "zipperless fuck" is OK.
>If people want to screw then they should take responsibility for possible
>outcomes.

Rather, you claim if people "want to screw" then the man
must shoulder the responsibility for possible outcomes resulting
from the woman's subsequent decision.  The woman need not, apart 
from getting an abortion.

At least your parochialism is evident -- any sexual relationship 
that _ends_ (or doesn't require the same group of friends!) 
is a "zipperless fuck."

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,soc.singles