HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kranitz@mr.med.ge.com (Wes Kranitz 4-6857 MRCE)
Subject: A different twist!!!!!!!
Organization: GE Medical Systems
Date: 9 Apr 92 13:41:04

I read an interesting article in the Milwaukee Journal yesterday. I don't have
the article infront of me so I don't know where these numbers come from, but here's 
what it said:


          1) Women owned business employee more people than all the
             Fortune 500 companies combined.

          2) Women started over 300,000 new businesses last year, significantly
             more than men (the number of men started businesses wasn't given).

I don't know how much of this is true, but if it is, I think women should be
talking to their "sisters" about the wage disparity. Seems their just as guilty
of it as the men suppositly are. Maybe it really is economics!

Wes

Newsgroups: soc.women
From: shortell@spock.ecs.umass.edu (Laurel L Shortell)
Subject: Re: feminists are bad in bed
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 14:29:04 GMT

Laurel originally wrote:
   
  Some feminists are very good in bed and have
  exciting sex with other feminists.

valdes@bgsu.edu (oscar Valdes) writes:>>In article <dirk.701663653@vincent1.iastate.edu> dirk@iastate.edu (Sleepy) writes:>>>In <9685@bgsuvax.bgsu.edu> valdes@bgsu.edu (oscar Valdes) writes:
>>>>	This is exactly what I hear.  However, I don't have first-hand
>>>>knowledge. Their physical appearance and care is normally repulsive
>>>>and I wouldn't want to have sex with them anyways.
>>
>>>     My, aren't we shallow ? Besides, I know many feminists, and none
>>>of them are, IMHO, repulsive. Apparently, unlike you, a mind intrigues me.
>
>>	To paraphrase you, go back and read again.  My comment applies
>>to a special type of feminist.  It is very specific, and it has
>>nothing to do with intelligence.

Excuse me? What specific feminist did you mention? You just
said "Their" and "them", referring to the feminists in the
first statement. NOWHERE did you say anything about
specific feminists. You just generalized wildly. YOU go
back and read again, right at the top of the article.

Laurel
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: more thoughts on a new slant to rape stats
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 22:15:23 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.183415.12789@acsu.buffalo.edu> camurphy@acsu.buffalo.edu (Cindy) writes:

)i DO think of rape as terrorism.  as a MALE professor of mine has stated,
)"rapists are the vanguard of patriarchy."  men are not "patriarchy".
)patriarchy is a system.  

I probably mentioned this before, but the only study I've seen on this
topic showed absolutely *no* correlation between 'patriarchy' (as
measured by women's wages, women on the police force, women judges)
and rape rates.  So, you can think of 'patriarchy' causing rape, but
there is no evidence to actually support this position (that I am
aware of) and at least some evidence to refute it.


Newsgroups: tcd.talk,soc.women,soc.men,talk.rape,talk.abortion,rec.arts.sf.misc
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: A rather peculiar letter.
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
	<1992Mar23.204637.15716@maths.tcd.ie>
	<1992Mar31.161857.12073@deeptht.santa-cruz.ca.us>
	<1992Apr1.201558.21131@lambda.msfc.nasa.gov>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1992 21:42:42 GMT

 Jim> == Jim Puckett <puckett@lambda.msfc.nasa.gov> 

 Jim> However, being an ex-drunk, I will here point out that there are 
 Jim> large areas of 1883-85 that I don't remember. However, there are
 Jim> records that indicate that I indeed _was_ 8)

Dang!  And you're still around?
--
Christopher Davis <ckd@eff.org> |    ECONOMIC OBSERVATIONS DEPARTMENT
System Manager & Postmaster     |  "There's always something going out of
Electronic Frontier Foundation  |      business in Central Square."
+1 617 864 0665  NIC: [CKD1]    |   -Rita Marie Rouvalis <rita@eff.org>
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Makeup, Cosmo, Ms. and car paint.
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com
Date: 6 Apr 92 13:31:53 GMT
Organization: M&E (Division of EDS), Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: lems

In article <1992Apr4.224928.18311@access.digex.com>, deja-q@access.digex.com (Lin Yon Q) writes:
> In article <1992Apr1.101719.1@mdcbbs.com> rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:
>>> Cosmopolitan?  Is this your idea of a feminist publication?
>>
>>  At one time, it represented itself as such, and Publisher Helen Gurly Brown
>>as a feminist, because she WAS a publisher.
> 
> Could that possibly be because your ex wife subscribed, therefore it MUST be
> an evil feminist plot publication from HELL? 

  My ex subscribed to Vogue, including the European versions.

 Or do you really mean that
> all publishers are feminists? 

  Helen Gurly Brown declared herself to be a feminist.



 Or do you mean that your ability to read is
> affected by the word "feminist"?  Or, because Cosmo sells cosmetics, and
> of course all women force their husbands to buy them cosmetics, and, of 
...........................


  My issue remains, first and formost, that women are victimized by assaults on
their self image. They are coerced into spending a lot of their money on
products that do nothing but reinforce the image that their faces need to be
hidden from the light of day and the gaze of their fellow human.

  American women spend 50 billion dollars a year on beauty products
and services. That amount of human endeavor is gone. It did improve
our roads. It did not feed the homeless. It did not imporve our schools and it
did not keep our emergancy rooms open. That 50 billion dollars worth
of human energy and effort is gone, literally washed down the sink
drain at a time when people are sleeping in alleys and eating out of trash
cans.

  Are women really that short sighted and insensitive? Of course not. They've
just been conned. They've been taught since birth that these decorations
are necessary to work, or to attract a mate. Men are taught that they should
respond positively to such displays, as they signify the attraction ritual.
So on and on it goes, diverting the natural desire to be together and
turning it into a commercial endeavor for profit.  Women aren't the
problem, they are the victims of a monumental swindle. Men aren't
the problem, either. It's just a very few, very greedy corporations who
perpatuate the practice, and they do so simply to extract the most money
from the population for the least real return.




<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com Homo Cyberneticus-Computational Man  |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: ou812@cbnewse.cb.att.com (Old User)
Subject: Pro-Choice Rally
Organization: Fun City
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 23:02:59 GMT
Summary: wasn't it great?
Keywords: rally, huge, awesome, Carol Moseley Braun

I am trying to plow through soc.women to see if there are any articles
from folks who were at the huge pro-choice rally on April 5.  But I am
600 articles from the end, and it's time to log out.  So, here's my own
message about it - It was great!  Who else from here was there?

The conservative estimates were half a million, the orgnaizers thought it
was more like 3/4 to 1 million.  I personally have never seen so many
humans in my life at one time, so I can't really say.  The Mall was full
of us.  Some funny signs: "Elvis is Pro-Choice" "Computer Weenies for
Choice"  Favorite slogan: "Free Barbara Bush" as we went past the White
House. :-)  George of course was hiding at Camp David during the event.

Also, a plug for my favorite future U.S. Senator, Carol Moseley Braun.
She spoke at the rally as did many other political hopefuls. I received
a mailing from EMILY's List, they are pushing for her in a big way.  
I am confident of her victory in November.  I campaigned for her in
the primary and feel especially proud of her victory over Alan Dixon,
who has been a very nonresponsive senator.  I find it amusing how
some people are so threatened by the thought of a non-rich non-white 
non-male person getting into a position of power in our country.  Also,
believe it or not, some people from Chicago are honest!
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: bev@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu (Beverly Huntsberger)
Subject: Re: #1 PREVENTABLE KILLER OF WOMEN
Organization: Univ. of South Carolina, Columbia
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 17:10:54 GMT

In <31941@darkstar.ucsc.edu> horny@ucscb.ucsc.edu (Heather Vinopal) writes:

>  Tobacco is the single biggest cause of premature adult death
>throughout the world.  It is thought to kill about 3 million
>people a year, including about 500,000 women.  Just over half the
>deaths are in industrial countries.

>   "In the United Staates, every day more than 1,600 American teen-age
>girls smoke for the first time,"  exposing themselves to the risk of 
>lung cancer, heart disease and other tobacco-related illnesses,
>the report said.

>   "Although smoking was first adopted by the more affluent educated
>women, these women were also the first to give it up," it said.  
>"The female smoker is now more likely to have a limited education, 
>have a lower status job or be unemployed."

>Heather Vinopal    horny@ucscb.ucsc.edu

	I know how hard it can be for most smokers to
	quit. I really tried dozens of times. This
	last time it "stuck". Two years this past
	Valentine's Day. ;)  And I knew within a few
	weeks that "this was the time". I took a six
	week program by the American Lung Association.
	It's not for everyone but it worked for me.

	I'd been addicted for 17 years and I really
	wanted to quit, but never could before that.

	It really makes me want to scream when I see
	a woman smoking. Am I helping in the fight for
	the rights of women to control their lives,
	their bodies, their destinies; so that they can
	spend their last 10 years in and out of hospitals,
	hacking their lungs out?  |(

	Some of you may get angry at me. That's OK.
	But I need to say this:

	Get Smart. Get Tough. Quit Killing Us All.
	QUIT SMOKING NOW.

	Bev
-- 
-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Just read his lips:
Now, he wants us to believe in the "tooth fairy".
-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: abortion is a women's issue
From: mzener@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 16 Apr 92 12:56:29 EDT
Organization: Wesleyan University

> ABORTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MEN!

   Tell that to the father.
From: ELLEN@PURCCVM.BITNET
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Rally
Date: 15 Apr 92 22:16:43 GMT
 <1992Apr14.145242.18355@ils.nwu.edu>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Purdue University

Yes, we were there and it was great, tho the drive was tiring.  My
favorite slogan was "we're fierce, we're feminists, and we're in your
face!"  I hope we elect a Pro-Choice President so we don't have to do
this again, but IF so I would like to see some official standards made
of light-weight metal that could spin in the wind that had the names of
the different states--we would like to have hooked up with more people from
Indiana.
From: bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: A guy wants your advice
Date: 8 Apr 92 03:08:40 GMT
Reply-To: bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright)
Organization: Zortech, Seattle

In article <MAILQUEUE-99.920406213442.256@caedm.byu.edu> MURILLOM@CAEDM.BYU.EDU ("Martin Murillo") writes:
/Now I don't know what to do, I don't know wether I should
/tell her that I was the one that sent the roses or just wait for some
/time.

Tell her you sent them. Sending roses anonymously hasn't worked for any
guy I know who tried it.

If she has a boyfriend, she will assume he sent them, and he (if he has any
brains) will agree that he sent them.

If she acts interested in you, get moving and ask her out. Opportunities can
pass you by pretty quickly.
Xref: sparky soc.women:8767 talk.rape:847
From: albert2@sevenlayer.cs.wisc.edu (Sarah Ullman)
Newsgroups: soc.women,talk.rape
Subject: Los Angeles Women Readers Only
Date: 9 Apr 92 00:17:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: spool.1992Apr9.001746.22715
Distribution: usa
Organization: UCLA Psychology Dept

THE FOLLOWING ANNOUNCEMENT IS FOR LOS ANGELES AREA WOMEN ONLY:
--------------------------------------------------------------

Have you ever felt pressured or forced to have sexual intercourse or
other sexual experiences when you did not want to?

Female volunteers age 18 or older who had this experience at least  
1 year ago are needed for an anonymous 45 minute mail survey.

Please call Dr. Sarah Ullman at the Department of Psychology at UCLA
(310)-825-9125
From: dmcanzi@watserv1.waterloo.edu (David Canzi)
Subject: Re: I'm not a bigot, I was making a joke (Re: Playboy)
Organization: Effete Corps of Impudent Snobs
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 05:20:57 GMT

In article <9778@bgsuvax.bgsu.edu> valdes@bgsu.edu (oscar Valdes) writes:
>In article <1992Apr3.064636.6774@watserv1.waterloo.edu> dmcanzi@watserv1.waterloo.edu (David Canzi) writes:
>	[trying to justify himself]
>>The parenthetical comment was meant to strike people as humorous, but
>>perhaps humour is an unfamiliar concept for you.  Try looking it up in
>>a dictionary.
>
>	It seems to be quite common, and not only in the net, to justify
>bigotry and insulting remarks by claiming it was an attempt to be
>humorous.  A perfect example in show biz is, of course, Andrew Dice Clay.

The comment was that I could buy certain pornographic magazines with a
clear conscience because they don't carry tobacco advertising.  The
offensive implication of this statement, I presume, is that I tolerate
pornography.

This is the first time I have ever seen a person accused of bigotry for
what he tolerates rather than for what he doesn't tolerate.

By the way, what is meant humorously can also be true.  A magazine that
carries tobacco ads is probably doing more harm than a magazine that
carries "dirty" pictures but no tobacco ads.  Do you really think that
enticing people to use a product that kills is less serious than
providing pictures of people having sex for the erotic stimulation of
the viewer?

>>Unlike you, I don't think that embarrassment is a trivial thing.  It
>>can actually have a powerful effect on your behaviour.  Have you never
>>avoided some behaviour because of what people might think of you?   For
>
>	Nope.  I happen to have a healthy self-steem.

I'm glad to hear that you're such a tower of emotional strength.

>	Can I answer another stupid question for you?

Sure.  How would you feel about standing on a soapbox in a crowded park
on a Sunday afternoon wearing an "I'm stupid" T-shirt and a propeller
beanie, and singing "Ob-la-di Ob-la-da"?  Since you are impervious to
embarrassment this would be easy, right?  Would you be willing to do it
for, say, $20?

-- 
David Canzi
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov
Subject: Re: <None>
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 22:10:26 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.124251.1@mdcbbs.com>, rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:
> of this is simple. If you take on the mantle of communicator, any failure
> to communicate is YOURS. You cannot blame your audiance if they don't
> understand what you are saying, and just dismissing them because they haven't
> read the correct books and magazines is a cop-out royale!

Ah, but I am not the only communicator here.  You assumed the mantle of
communicator in making a critique of feminism.  Your critique is refuted by
contradictory data, and now you are complaining that it wasn't spoon-fed to
you, so feminists are to blame for your ignorance of feminism.  It doesn't work
that way, Michael. If you want to be taken seriously as someone with something
valid to say about feminism, then go to the trouble of finding out what
feminism does and does not, and don't cry foul when someone points out your
lack of research.
-- 
Daniel B. Holzman                    | Eight Words the Witch's Rede Fufill:
HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET                  | An It Harm None, Do What You Will
HOLZMAN@FNALC.FNAL.GOV.INTERNET      |
                                     | All Acts of Love and Pleasure are
Love doesn't subtract,               | Her Rituals
   it multiplies    - Heinlein       |
TEAM STAR Charter Member             | Saddam Hussein still has a job.  Do you?
Disclaimer:  Fermilab's far too large to have an opinion, let alone mine.
From: pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: abortion is a women's issue
Date: 17 Apr 92 14:14:52 GMT
Organization: (Ha!)

In article <1992Apr17.022513.8369@ccu.umanitoba.ca> kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts) writes:
>How do you possibly contrive exclusion?  I said talk about women, placing no
>restrictions what-so-ever on with whom.  I also implied the quality of
>discussion could be raised by the contributions of women, which is why I
>said women should be encouraged to add to the discussions.
Your sexist assumptions are so ingrained that they are invisible to you.
Just who do you think is having this discussion that women "should be
encouraged to add to" ? You've singled out one gender as the one invited
to chime in; that implies an existing discussion being held by some other
gender -- let me guess which one. 

>... I see soc.women
>as a group meant for discussion about women, not for the discussion of
>women.  Newsgroup titles generally indicate the content of a group, not
>who is allowed to post.  Second, the contributions of women can enrich the
>discussion, but these contributions are not necessary for discussion, and
>in the case of Carolyn, detract from the discussion.

The contributions of women are not necessary for a discussion about women?
So I would assume, then, that you would agree that in soc.men the 
contributions of men are not necessary for a discussion about men either?
And if you're setting yourself up as equal-opportunity guardian of the
quality of the discussion here, well, uh, er.....

paul
Xref: sparky soc.women:8872 rec.sport.basketball.pro:8110
From: mayoff@austin.eds.com (Rob Mayoff)
Newsgroups: soc.women,rec.sport.basketball.pro
Subject: Re: Women
Date: 12 Apr 92 06:56:53 GMT
Organization: EDS Research;  University of Texas at Austin;  Talisman

In article <1992Apr10.043120.4192@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> lavellin@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Joseph Lavelline) writes:
>
>Some girls like to buy new shoes and others like driving trucks and 
>wearing tatoos.

There's only one thing that they all like a bunch:
Oh, girls, they wanna have lunch.
Yeah, girls just wanna have lunch.

rob
From: bev@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu (Beverly Huntsberger)
Subject: Re: Makeup - a male perspective
Organization: Univ. of South Carolina, Columbia
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 16:15:27 GMT

>> P.S. My own hair is quite short because it's easy to care for that way and
>> because I think balding men look pretty stoopid with long, thin hair!
>-- 

>  NOT!  They don't look stupid (just insecure).  

	NOT NOT NOT. They look ... the other way!

	Translation: none of them are anywhere near
	"stoopid" (sic) OR "insecure" enough to even
	bother reading any of this trash.

bah
-- 
-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Just read his lips:
Now, he wants us to believe in the "tooth fairy".
-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: <None>
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com
Date: 6 Apr 92 13:33:19 GMT
Organization: M&E (Division of EDS), Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: lems

In article <1992Apr4.225100.18422@access.digex.com>, deja-q@access.digex.com (Lin Yon Q) writes:
> In article <1992Apr1.102000.1@mdcbbs.com> rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:
>>  Sounds fair enough.    I wanted sex from my ex-wife, and she took
>>all my cash instead!
> 
> Certainly is fair enough.  She took the cash to buy better sex.  
> 

  She has to BUY sex? That's an insult to my ex, and them's
fighting words!  :)





<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com Homo Cyberneticus-Computational Man  |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: gross@befvax.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: abortion is a women's issue
Reply-To: gross@befvax.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago, Dept of Molecular Genetics
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 06:46:23 GMT

In article <carol.703398081@ee.uts.EDU.AU>, carol@ee.uts.edu.au (Carol Gibson) writes:
>I know this is going to raise hell - but what the hell..
>
>ABORTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MEN!

Right.  And men never want to have children.  And men never pay for 
abortions.  And men never discuss birth control.  And men never pay 
child support.  And men never perform abortions.  And men never have
sex with women.  And men are never fathers.  And fetus's just 
spontaneously start growing in women's uteruses.

And monkeys might fly out of my butt.

>I subscribed to this newsgroup because I wanted to discuss opinions
>with women - instead I find a bunch of men discussing abortion...
I subscribed to this news group because I'm interested in issues that
affect both men and women, and what they have to say--instead, I 
find women who tell me that things that concern me don't concern me.

>	Carol

Leon Gross
I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV.
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: pciszek@isis.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek)
Subject: Suppose pornography DOES encourage violence?
Summary: A lot of bad stuff is protected
Keywords: first amendment, KKK, offensive material
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 03:10:47 GMT

Let us suppose, for a moment, that the claims of some that pornography
encourages violence towards women is true.

The KKK is openly hostile towards all non-caucasians.  I know of no one who
could say "The KKK does nothing to encourage racial violence" and keep a
straight face.  And yet, the marches, rallies, and publications of the KKK
are protected by the first ammendment.  The ACLU is willing to spend
considerable resources defending the Klan's right to encourage hate.

So why doesn't this same wonderful tolerance extend to pornography?  Is it
because black men are not considered to be worth as much as white women?

--
Paul Ciszek, pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu | Saddam Hussein still has a job; do you?
Newsgroups: soc.women