HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dave Eisen)
Subject: Re: How to Protect Women
Followup-To: soc.women,alt.feminism,alt.women,soc.men
Organization: Sequoia Peripherals, Inc.
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 18:25:26 GMT

In article <michael.724527665@glia> michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael) writes:
>In <1992Dec15.122038.11837@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>
>>In my humble opinion, IF I were in an abusive relationship, I would LEAVE!  I
>>would never allow it to degrade to a situation where I was in a life and death
>>struggle and was forced to use deadly force in order to prevent someone from
>>using deadly force against me.
>
>Its not that simple.  There is a complex psychological relationship in
>many abuse cases in which the victim is not able to simply leave.  And
>then of course sometimes there is no place safe to go.  I'm not saying
>that killing the husband is the solution we all want.  But sometimes
>that's the only solution the women can find to escape their hell.

Things are never that simple. And I understand that many victims
of abusive relationships find it difficult to leave for psychological
reasons. But do we really want to set up public policy so that
we allow killing if the killer for whatever reasons, psychological
or otherwise, finds his situation difficult? I for one don't want to
live in such a society.

The fact that the abuse victim does not have a safe place to go
is a much more compelling reason than that the victim doesn't
have the psychological strength to leave. I still have problems
with this --- I'd prefer to excuse such a killing only if the
killer was in imminent physical danger, the usual self-defense
standard --- but it's a whole lot better to allow killing when
the killer reasonably believes he is in danger and there is no
way out than when the killer doesn't have whatever emotional
strenght it takes to take the way out that is available.

Followups directed out of misc.legal.



-- 
Dave Eisen                               Sequoia Peripherals: (415) 967-5644
dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU              Home:                (415) 321-5154
       There's something in my library to offend everybody. 
          --- Washington Coalition Against Censorship
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: rjc@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (robert.cook)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Need Ireland Net Contact
Date: 14 Dec 92 21:38:33 GMT
Organization: AT&T


   Sorry for posting here, but couldn't find an appropriate group.  Also, 
figured MOST red blooded Earthlings might look at this. TNKS

   Looking for a contact in Ireland who may help me aquire an Irish Whiskey
for my Dad for Christmas.  Phone number for a liquar distributor or something
would be appreciated.  He would like "Paddy".

   Thanks for any help and everyones indulgence in this post.

Robert (303)980-5182
From: akcs.jimbayer@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Jim Bayer)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: What's really behind this "men's choice" thing?
Date: 18 Dec 92 14:00:03 CST

AARON,

I just wanted to let you know that I've never thought about this issue
from this standpoint.  Your message has heighened my awareness and will
certainly cause me to rethingk/decide my position on this issue.

As a general statement, I'm against abortion and don't think I'm going to
change my position on that topic, but the male/female rights as far as
the child goes is something to think about.

Jim

******
* I gotta' get me a snappy ending
******

Xref: sparky soc.women:21638 soc.men:21393 alt.feminism:6225 talk.abortion:52374
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: just passing through on way to alt.real-men.grunt.thud ....
Date: 18 Dec 92 12:56:21
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1992Dec17.211922.15114@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu>
	<1992Dec18.041148.14307@watson.ibm.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: margoli@watson.ibm.com's message of Fri, 18 Dec 1992 04:11:48 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.041148.14307@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
>In <1992Dec17.211922.15114@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu> conditt@tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (Paul Conditt) writes:
>>
>>Believe it or not, we *all* have the right to choose what happens to our
>>bodies.  The thing that we don't seem to be willing to accept is *when*
>>that choice occurs.  The choice occurs *before* you have sex, not during
>>and certainly not after.

>Yup.  And if you chose to not reproduce, by using birth control, then you
>*have* made your choice.

No, you have not "chosen to not reproduce" when you have sex using birth
control.  You have simply chosen to take a "1/5/10/etc percent *chance*
of reproducing" (the actual percentage depends on the type of birth
control chosen and how well you use it).  If you gamble and lose, then
you have to deal with the consequences.

>And if the birth control fails, then it's certainly
>a responsible decision to stick with your original choice.

Exactly.  The choice of "taking a small chance of reproducing."

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                      | ~Can you tell me how much bleeding/it
muffy@mica.berkeley.edu            |  takes to fill a word with meaning and/
"amorous inclinations"? Aha! I'm   |  how much how much death it takes/to give
not "not straight," I'm *inclined*.|  a slogan breath?~ - Bruce Cockburn
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,alt.women,soc.men
From: michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael)
Subject: Re: How to Protect Women
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 16:57:02 GMT

In <1992Dec16.182526.17993@leland.Stanford.EDU> dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dave Eisen) writes:
>Things are never that simple. And I understand that many victims
>of abusive relationships find it difficult to leave for psychological
>reasons. But do we really want to set up public policy so that
>we allow killing if the killer for whatever reasons, psychological
>or otherwise, finds his situation difficult? I for one don't want to
>live in such a society.

>The fact that the abuse victim does not have a safe place to go
>is a much more compelling reason than that the victim doesn't
>have the psychological strength to leave. I still have problems
>with this --- I'd prefer to excuse such a killing only if the
>killer was in imminent physical danger, the usual self-defense
>standard --- but it's a whole lot better to allow killing when
>the killer reasonably believes he is in danger and there is no
>way out than when the killer doesn't have whatever emotional
>strenght it takes to take the way out that is available.

Well obviously I agree that a better solution is required.  But I
think what we have here is that courts are recognizing that when
someone has no options (and effectively this is true), they will
protect their survival.  In a way, I believe this is viewed as
self defense.

Hopefully in the future, we will find some better way to help women
out of these situations before they develop this far.  At this point
I have no solutions I can think of.

    Michael Stanley (michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu)
Xref: sparky soc.women:21579 alt.feminism:6177 soc.men:21316
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,alt.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: How to Protect Women
Date: 17 Dec 92 17:01:39 GMT
Organization: QQQCLC

In article <1992Dec16.235029.14126@tellab5.tellabs.com> chrz@tellabs.com (Peter Chrzanowski) writes:
>Guess where most of Aid to the Disabled welfare goes?  Wanna get welfare
>but can't have kids?  Smoke some crack! 

	Complete and utter bullshit. Yet another poster to add to my
long list of those with no respect for truth.

						Kayembee
From: baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Cosmo covers
Keywords: womens bodies
Date: 16 Dec 92 21:47:32 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: BT North America, San Jose CA.

In article <1992Dec16.183556.2379@Princeton.EDU>, mhnatsis@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Martha Helen Natsis) writes:
|> 1) They probably are starving themselves
|> 2) The cleavage is accomplished by taping themselves up (most of those
|> outfits would not be able to conceal a bra)

Could be. I remember reading about the photographer(s) who do Cosmo's covers.
It seems they(or was it just him?) prefer young women for models. In
this case young is under 14 years. Checked out a couple of subsequent
issues and it sure seems possible.

I haven't looked at Cosmo in years so things might have changed.

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

We have yet to learn that the thing uttered in words is not therefore affirmed. It must affirm itself, or no forms of logic or of oath can give it evidence. 
The sentence must also contain its own apology for being spoken. - R.W.Emerson
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: why
X-To: ALL
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 05:32:00 GMT

gembura@acs.ucalgary.ca (Jerry Robert Gembura) writes...
JRG> How come that 99.9% of articles in this group are written by men?
JRG> Just curious.
JRG> Jerry

Not quite 99%, though...  Still,

Answer: Because over 3/4 of the people on the net are male.

And there is no conspiracy to keep women from writing, BTW.

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

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * rotisserie - (n) a ferris wheel for chickens.
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.polyamory
From: ra@asuvax.eas.asu.edu (Starcap'n Ra)
Subject: Re: Pre-Sex Contract
Followup-To: soc.women
Organization: soc.women
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 23:46:01 GMT

In article <71914@cup.portal.com>, DeadHead@cup.portal.com (Bruce M Ong) writes:
> >LM> Fer crissakes, if you feel that way, why not just get a
> >LM> vasectomy??
> >It's not that simple, Lana.  *David* may not want children (perhaps never),
> >but a vasectomy might be a bit TOO extreme, especially if he should decide in
> >the future that he wants to have a family.
> >
> 	WHAT? You mean he is gonna change his mind later on, at a point in
> his life that he wants to take new circumstances into consideration???? 
> Isnt that like lying to himself? He hates being lied to, I hear. 
> 
> 	:-)

     What a singularly stupid remark to make, Bruce.
Or is that smiley thing supposed to excuse you?

--Starcap'n Ra       {ames,gatech,husc6,rutgers}!ncar!noao!asuvax!kennedy
                        {allegra,decvax,ihnp4,oddjob}--^
                                          ^---------------The Wrong Choice
                             internet: kennedy@asuvax.asu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism,talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: just passing through on way to alt.real-men.grunt.thud ....
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:45:21 GMT

> = (Paul Conditt) writes:

>There are always extenuating circumstances,
>but it seems like if people were willing to take responsibility for their
>own actions, then a whole lot of the situations where abortion becomes
>an issue would be avoided.

Oh, brother; not this dishonest bromide again...

>The key here is to plan ahead and
>not wait until you're in the throes of passion to make these decisions.
>I know for most men, the blood flow to the brain in such situations are
>diverted somewhere a little bit south, therefore I can't count on myself
>to think real clearly.

TRANSLATION: I will not take personal responsibility at this point because
I'm a helpless, lust-crazed man.

[...]
>The choice occurs *before* you have sex, not during
>and certainly not after.  If a woman wants to preserve her right to 
>choose to not have a baby, then she shouldn't engage in activities where
>there's a possibility of that happening.  

Wrong, Moose Breath.  The woman can choose to have an abortion if she gets
pregnant.  The woman doesn't have to "preserve" anything, because abortion is
a safe and *legal* option, and that ain't gonna change.  

>Same thing for men.  What is it
>that makes it so hard to accept this responsibility?

There is no responsibility to carry a pregnancy to term.  You just think
there is.  ...And luckily, you can do whatever you want in YOUR
relationships, and I'm happy for your freedom.  Just mind your own business,
and you'll probably have more free time, and people will quit thinking you're
a control freak..

[...]
-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
From: simon@fsinfo.cs.uni-sb.de (Julia Simon)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Mother In Laws
Date: 19 Dec 1992 14:16:14 GMT
Organization: Fachschaft Computerlinguistik, U of Saarland, FRG
NNTP-Posting-Host: fsinfo.cs.uni-sb.de

alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu (Amy Young Leith) writes:
> I think the problems with the inlaws come from overprotective families
> who think that the new interest is trying to "take" their child away
> from them.

I think Amy is right. Here are some examples from my family and a friend's:

My grandfather (my mother's father) was raised by his elder sister, since
their parents died when he was only a few years old. So his sister had to sort
of shape her life around her little brother, and naturally, when he met the
woman he was going to marry, suddenly found the very center of her life
missing. She always was very jealous of her sister-in-law. Since this aunt of
mine died soon after I was born I never actually met her, but my mother says
her mother and her aunt were fighting almost whenever they met.

A friend of mine seems to have a very protective (over-protective) mother.
She's an unmarried mother (his father was married to another woman and didn't
want to divorce her just to marry this other woman), so to her her son is
everything she has on earth. He once told me that his mother and his
girlfriend were REALLY good friends until his mother found out that this
friend of his was planning to "take her son away from her". He also said his
mother still gets along very well with every female friend of his he obviously
is not in love with.

On the other hand, my grandmother (my father's mother) gets along really well
with my mother and vice versa. I think that's because my father is not an only
child but has several sisters, one of which was mentally handicapped and lived
with her mother until she (the sister) died some months ago. Maybe my
grandmother simply couldn't be jealous of her daughter-in-law because there
still was one of her children living with her on whom she could "pour out" all
her love, I don't know, but maybe it's just because she's a very reasonable
woman and *knows* my mother didn't marry her son to "protect" him from his
mother or something.

I haven't had many opportunities to meet my future mother-in-law yet, but from
these few I can tell she's a very nice woman, not at all over-protective (my
fiance's been living in his own apartment in another town for some years
already and she doesn't mind at all) and we should be able to become really
good friends. As he told me his mother even was very happy when he told her
he'd met a woman he would probably marry!

			Julia 8-)

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
				Julia Simon

 Fachschaftsrat Computerlinguistik	DIaLOGIKa GmbH
 Fachbereich 8.7, Bau 17, Zi. 201
 Universit"at des Saarlandes		Albertstr., Pascalschacht
 D-W-6600 Saarbr"ucken, Germany		D-W-6602 Dudweiler, Germany

			email: simon@fsinfo.cs.uni-sb.de
			       sileas@coli.uni-sb.de
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: lmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Laurie Mann)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Date: 18 Dec 1992 21:40:37 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
Reply-To: lmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: ansible.pubs.stratus.com

Diane writes
>dgross@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu (Dave Gross) writes:
>>"We men" are surrounded by violence from our circumcision...
>Are you seeing a trend here? If there's a problem with violence, it looks
>suspiciously like a male-problem that women are supposed to just put up with,
>because we may not make up the largest segment of victims....You seem to be
>angry that women would dare to usurp whatever fear you claim to be living
>with. Deal with it...

Diane, this is a SUPERB answer.  I came close to flaming this person,
but chose not to.  You have cogently responded to him. Thanks.

*  In Germany they first came for the Communists, and I didn't speak *
*  because I wasn't a Communist.  Then they came for the Jews, and I *
*  didn't speak because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade *
* unionists, and I didn't speak because I wasn't a trade unionist... *
*Then they came for me--and by that time no one was left to speak up.*
*  Rev. Martin Niemoeller     [Why to March on Washington in April]  
Xref: sparky soc.women:21603 alt.feminism:6196
From: alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu (Amy Young Leith)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Nasty E-Mail
Date: 18 Dec 92 02:36:37 GMT
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington

In article <1992Dec10.154145.29960@wam.umd.edu> sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell) writes:
>athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:
>
>>Perhaps the women should start to post the e-mail addresses of the folks
>>who ask the wannafuck questions of them.  Then we can bombard THEM with the
>>areyououtofyourmind questions.
>	I agree.  I think the senders of such mail would be VERY
>	embarrassed.  I could be wrong but I think it would stop
>	them cold.

I don't necessarily agree with this.  I have participated in many
discussions about rude email, and it never fails that after discussing
this, serious "new" email contacts decline, and almost all of the new
email contacts start off with, "This is not a wannafuck..."  Just as
people are scared to death of being accused of sexual harassment in
the workplace, this type of response would create the same tension.
And, there would be women and men who would misuse this, and post
delicate but non-harassing email because they got their nose out of
joint.  I think that the unspoken policy of keeping email private is,
except for in extreme cases is the best.  

I think most normal people can differentiate between someone who,
bluntly, has poor communication abilities and comes across as rude and
"disgusting" with one who INTENDED to come across that way.  

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.women
From: SURGDM@mizzou1.missouri.edu (Diane McAlpin)
Subject: Re: just passing through on way to alt.real-men.grunt.thud....
Organization: University of Missouri
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 13:41:51 CST

In article <1992Dec16.191242.18047@athena.cs.uga.edu>
fuller@athena.cs.uga.edu (James P. H. Fuller) writes:
 
>    <an excellent post!>
>                                                  -- jf
>
>                                    ... speaking for Ask Abby, Ask
>                                    Ann, everybody's mom and a line
>                                    of no-bloody-nonsense fathers
>                                    stretching back to the Palaeolithic ...
 
I love it! I'm *still* cackling over it. Thank you!
Diane
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father
X-To: MICHAL LEAH PERI
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 01:08:00 GMT

peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes...
MLP> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:

MLP> >hwatters@armltd.uucp (Helen Watters) writes...
MLP> >HW> You can't legislate for truth justice love etc. in a relationship.
MLP> >HW> Some people you form relationships with are wonderful and some aren't.
MLP> >HW> Only bitter experience allows you to find out which is which.

MLP> >Yes, but what do you do if you are currently in the middle of one, and are
MLP> >being taken advantage of?

MLP> Either (1) Get counselling, so you stop letting the other person take
MLP>            advantage of you;
MLP> Or     (2) Get out.  Fast.

Hmmm, it sounds good, but these two options don't work for many women.  I
do not doubt that they won't work for many men, either.  (For example, leaving
is pretty much out of the question if your income is high and would like it
to stay that way, and/or if you have children).

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

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Nothing is so smiple that it can't get screwed up.
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell)
Subject: Re: cosmo covers--models too thin?
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 15:34:37 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.151650.949@blurt.oswego.edu> tuttle@blurt.oswego.edu writes:
>Do you men out there truly think that those models are too thin?  I have
>friends that say that all the time, but we women diet till we drop to look like
>that!  Do you prefer a petite size 4 or a perfect size 10?  

Yes, I think some of those models are way to thin.  Physically speaking I
like a wide range of physical types, but I think some women carry the
"slender ideal" to far the way some women get turned off by men who
lift weights to much.  I myself am not attracted by women's bodies that
have had dieted down to a  "linear look".

I have seen many beautiful women come into my gym with very "visually arresting"figures, who thought they were overweight and worked themselves down to
comparitively unattractive "twiggy" look-a-likes.

Not all men like the physical ideal society tries to program women into accepting.  



Just my expressing my own prefferences

Steve 
R

B
B

Not all men like the "ideal" society
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: lmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Laurie Mann)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Mothers and daughters
Date: 17 Dec 1992 13:26:49 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: lmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: ansible.pubs.stratus.com

Richard Harter writes
>This article is posted to soc.women.  Please follow it up with
>any topic that you want to discuss.  Change the title line, if
>you like, but please don't add any groups to the distribution.
>
>Maybe something good will happen.

Richard, that's far too reasonable. 

Happy holidays!

I get along much better with my daughter than my mother, but I
get along OK with my mother.  Next?

*   NeXT: lmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com * GEnie:  Laurie.Mann   *
*In Germany they first came for the Communists, and I didn't speak*
*because I wasn't a Communist.  Then they came for the Jews, and I*
*didn't speak because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade*
*unionists, and I didn't speak because I wasn't a trade unionist..*
*Then they came for me---and by that time no one was left to speak*
*speak up.  [Martin Niemoeller]   Why to March on Washington, 4/93*
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,alt.women,soc.men