HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lundquis@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Jill Lundquist)
Subject: Re: Is this a case of sex discrimination?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 00:54:36 GMT

In article <702281010@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
[deletia]
>
>The newspaper comments that:
>#Male offenders, who are supervised by the county Probation Department,
>#must serve at least half their sentences before becoming eligible for
>#home surveillance unless otherwise ordered by a judge.  Women are
>#under no such policy.
>
>I have a couple of questions:
>
>1) Is this policy sexism against men?

Yes, of course.

>2) If the policy was reversed (fat chance...) would it be sexist?

Yes, of course.

>3) Why to use the word "male" instead of "man"?
>4) Why to use the word "women" instead of "females"?

I have no idea of the reasoning (if there was any) behind this author's
decision, but since this implies that female humans are more human than
male humans, I don't care.  Whatever the intent, the effect is that
this is a sexist use of language, something I have objected to for
years.

Now one for you:  why the rhetorical questions?  

I won't see your response unless you post it to soc.women, but since
this topic obviously does not belong in soc.women, please respond
by mail if you want me to read it.  Thanks.

And I agreed with you in one of your fathers' rights posts, too.
Stop the presses -- Jill agreed with Hillel.  Twice.
-- 
Jill Lundquist		lundquis@spot.colorado.edu		DoD #882
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Population Caps.
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 16:10:01 GMT

In article <11735@tamsun.tamu.edu> cnh5730@maraba.tamu.edu (Charles Herrick) writes:
)Paul Zarrella writes
)> the point about the possibility of the planet only
)> supporting 2 billion people is well taken.  Look around.
)> Who can we get rid of?  
)
)
)The ones that shriek the loudest.
)
)
)	Chuck Herrick

Q: So, all people who shriek must be eliminated?

A: There can be no exceptions.

Q:  But _you_ are a shrieker!  Execute the prime directve!  Report to
the nearest disintegration station for disposal!

A:  Shrieker?  SHRIEKER?  I'M NO BLOODY SHRIEKER! (shrieking, of course)

:->
From: tron@tc.fluke.COM (Peter Barbee)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Who's Bashing Whom? (was: Supposed "Non-Patriarchal" Societies)
Date: 8 Apr 92 14:08:04 GMT
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA

>Sally Quinn, in her syndicated article "Is Feminism As We Have Known
>it Dead?" [San Jose Mercury News, Jan. 26, 1992] paints Steinem as a
>"backslider" for admitting that she fell in love with a man who
>treated her badly (a big feminist no-no, but 'the way the world
>works'). Steinem admits to seducing him by playing down the person
>she was, and playing up the person she wanted him to be, which
>is what a feminist is NEVER supposed to do.

Not that I give a big cahoot about who Ms. Steinem does or doesn't
fall in love with but I always that "playing up the person she wanted him
to be" was a positive thing to do.  I could rephrase this as treating
people how you want them to be (eg. trust a person whom you want to be
trustworthy).  Pretty much golden rule stuff.

Of course the other part ("playing down the person she was") isn't
real healthy behavior.

Peter B
From: post@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (David Post)
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 01:59:24 GMT
Subject: Condom use among Prostitutes
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: soc.men

In your experience, do prostitutes *always* use condoms?

I am wondering whether prostitution is "safer" sex than among the rest of the
population.

David Post  davep@hpfcpp.fc.hp.com  hplabs!hpfcla!post
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Maternity leave
Date: 9 Apr 92 15:44:02 GMT
Reply-To: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <1992Apr9.035332.13948@midway.uchicago.edu> learn@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (William Vajk (igloo)) writes:
>in good conscience agree to the figure you arbitrarialy pulled out of
>someone's hat. Could be less, could be more.

	The average salary here is around 30K.  For us to pay 1 person's
salary for 1 year would require each of us to contribute $1000.  My $100
figure seems to be very optimistic...

>The eastern block solved the problem neatly. Employer paid (in some cases
>still does) half the normal income (for up to a year) to a new mom.

	I've noticed how healthy their economies are, too.  That's a "neat"
solution unless you're an employer, ehh?

>firm have a policy regarding long term disability for illness such as
>lung cancer possibly (probably) induced by smoking? Individuals who have

	We haven't been in business long enough to figure one out yet. We
do offer disablility inurance...  If I hired a consultant and 3 weeks into
the project she got hit by a bus I'd _have_ to cancel the contract and get
another consultant.  What's your point?  That pregnancy is a catastrophic
illness and should be treated the same way as I'd treat lung cancer or
a motor vehicle accident?  That doesn't ring true.

	When soldiers get pregant don't they get a discharge?  I don't 
think Texas has any laws (like New Jersey does) forcing "3 months leave
and her position must be guaranteed".  Hell, if this is really "Society's
Problem" why doesn't Society do something about it, as opposed to finding
someone to pass laws on making them responsible?  
								wr
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Who's Bashing Whom? (was: Supposed "Non-Patriarchal" Societies)
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com
Date: 6 Apr 92 10:12:51 GMT
Organization: M&E (Division of EDS), Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: rivero

In article <tfjj-n+.sheaffer@netcom.com>, sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
> In article <1992Apr1.035707.3833@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>>	And there has been a much LONGER history of men bashing women.
>>Just read Aristotle. 
            ^^^^^^^^^

  Who was balanced by Aristophanes, who had a different view of the genders.



<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com Homo Cyberneticus-Computational Man  |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: A neat story, and a question.
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 15:48:42 GMT

In article <FXBL_3C@ais.org> chungkuo@ais.org (Shawn FitzGerald) writes:

)I'd like to know if there is some place FTPable that archives sexual
)harrassment policies. I can't believe saying something that "offends"
)somebody in a room, when you've NEVER spoken to them or even know who they
)are can be termed 'sexual harrassment.'\

No - but they are all pretty much the same.  Typically they come from
the EEOC boilerplate verbatim.

The usual keywords are 'hostile, intimidating, or offensive working
environment'.  Which is of course _very_ vague.  

The full-boat definition is:

Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or
physical conduct of a sexual nature constitue sexual harassment when (1)
submission to such conduct is mae either explicitly or implicitly a term or
condition of an individual's employment, (2) submission to or rejection of
such conduct by an individual is use as the basis for employment decisions
affecting such an individual, or (3) such conduct has the purpose or effect
of unreasonably interferring with an individual's work performance or
creating an intimidating, hostile, or offesnive working environment.

You can find some of the rampant paranoia that is currently going on in the
industry about this topic in a (somewhat) recent article in 'Industry Week'. 
This paranoia is most likely fueled by a spate of recent court decisions,
though the details of the decisions are not documented well in the article.

The history of this language is also interesting.  The legislation on which
it was allegedly based was the Civil Rights act of 1964.  This legislation
says absolutely NOTHING about 'hostile environments'.  What it says is more
along the lines of the following:

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it "an unlawful employment
practice for an employer ... to discriminate against any individual with
respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment,
because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."
42 U.S.C. s 2000e-2(a)(1).

The EEOC argued for the current broad interpretation (based on work by
McKinnon, co-author of the much discussed 'anti-pornography' ordanance)
though Clarance Thomas probably deserves his share of the 'credit', being the
head of the EEOC at the time.  The courts bought this interpretation, and it
is now the effective law of the land.  I believe the ACLU is challenging it
in its current form as a violation of the first ammendment (freedom of
speech) - arguing (correctly IMO) that federal law (which is what Title VII
is) should not impose content/value judgement restrictions (such as
'offensive') on speech.
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Companies can afford it, right?
Date: 6 Apr 92 23:04:02 GMT
Reply-To: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <1992Apr6.161750.2113@news.nd.edu> slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:
>>	So you're a sucker.  
>So that is what you call a team-player.  I merely did for five 

	The difference is I get rewards already, none of this "Don't
worry, you'll get a raise, uh, next year, yeah, next year, that's the
ticket" stuff 'round here.  This is a good job at a good company.

>Why should you help out the guy who has to drive his lupus-afflicted 
>wife to the doctor every Friday?  Why should you help the woman who 
>stays up nights tending her child with ear infections?  Why should you 

	Why should I spend even more time at work because someone
**decides** she'd rather do something else for a year?  We're not talking
sudden illness, here, but a reasoned choice: "Gee, I want to have a baby.".

	That's the difference.  You want to have your cake AND eat it.
So sorry.  Sounds like you need a rich husband...
							W.rat


Newsgroups: soc.men
From: schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz)
Subject: Re: SNUFF FILMS sighted in TIME MAGAZINE!!! (Dworkin and MacKinnon, too)
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 17:25:01 GMT

In article <1596@devnull.mpd.tandem.com> dwelch@devnull.mpd.tandem.com
(Dan Welch) writes:
>
>You're right, Cindy, the Nazis were much worse.  They wanted to destroy
>the Jews, not the men.  And they advocated mass murder of the group they ...
>oops, wait, forget that one.  ...And they tried to forcefully surpress
>any opposing viewp... no, forget that one, too.

More news from Canada.  A lower court decision recently legitimized
censorship of men solely on the basis of gender.  Although the
specific case involved a man who wrote a critical letter to the
editor of a feminist magazine with a written policy of ignoring
male contributions if it desires, the decision presumably applies
to all media.

A lawyer summarized it thus: "If you're furthering the interests
of a disadvantaged group, it's not discrimination, it's not censorship,
it's affirmative action."  The logic here seems to be that if you
turn down the volume on men's voices, that's a good thing because it
levels the playing field for women's voices.

Now affirmative action of course has always applied to jobs and
grants, but never until now to _speech_.  And the sad part of it
is that nobody seems to care.  The stock media commentator opinion
was that it was a just and right decision, a step forward for women.
A step forward for Canada.

Excuse me while I find a bucket....

-S. Schultz
Xref: sparky soc.men:8129 soc.women:8708
From: pciszek@isis.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek)
Subject: Re: Japanese Women's Lib
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 92 14:34:02 GMT

jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:

>How and why do American males feel about the increasing liberation 
>of Japanese women?

It's not enough.  Only when the Japanese become overly sensitive to every
form of sexism, racism, ageism, ablism, preferencism, environmentalism, 
sino-dextrism, etc, and have imported all the lawyers that these causes
support, only then will the USA have a chance of competing in world
markets again.

--
Paul Ciszek, pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu | What's another word for "thesaurus"?
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Companies can afford it, right?
Date: 8 Apr 92 18:11:35 GMT
Reply-To: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <1992Apr7.202337.24380@panix.com> pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich) writes:
>going to do so over the long haul. That will mean that a higher
>proportion of children will be brought up in households containing
>someone who does not fit with all of the above. Now it's possible

	All of the children in my family were "latchkey" kids whose
parents were never home and always at work.  I'm a successful
entrepeneur, my brother is a famous neurosurgeon, and my other
brother is an artist and so he won't be rich or famous until he's
dead, but he sure is happy...

	Yeah, it's "anecdotal evidence", but in my opinion it's possible
to raise children in other ways than the "She stays at home he works"
model.
Xref: sparky soc.men:8499 soc.women:9016
From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: RFD: Nonprofit Corp. to Aid Japanese Feminism
Date: 15 Apr 92 21:50:43 GMT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

I've been thinking about this for awhile and I think I've actually
hit on something that American males and American feminists can
work together on:

Helping the cause of Japanese Feminism.

American males want to debilitate Japanese businessmen who are
currently mopping the floor with us in international competition.
American females want to help liberate their oppressed sisters in
Japan.  It seems like a marriage made in heaven!  The only question
is, "Is it too good to be true?"

--                    
INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!nosc!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 435-6181
Xref: sparky soc.men:8244 soc.women:8806
From: pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Companies can afford it, right?
Date: 8 Apr 92 15:21:11 GMT
Organization: (Ha!)

In article <1992Apr8.031705.6344@tc.cornell.edu> bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.202337.24380@panix.com> pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich) writes:
>>But seriously, if, as a society, we make it not in the economic
>>interests of intelligent, ambitious, educated & hardworking women
>>who want lives that extend beyond childcare and and housework to
>>maintain those lives _and_ have children, then fewer of them are
>>going to do so over the long haul. 
>
>To say "we as a society" is not enligthning, because there are so many
>individuals in it, each with his own world view and priorities. 
>A business owner may need the money for something which he values
>more than continuing the employment of someone who is less productive. He
>may need it, for example, to help paying expensive medical costs for
>him(her)self or his close family, and I dont see anything bad in 
>it. A person's NEED for employment does not automatically make someone 
>else obliged to give it to him.

True, but unless you're willing to see people starve in the streets, a
person's need for food and shelter does oblige the rest of us to either
help them find a way to earn it or to provide same out of general monies.
The choice here isn't _whether_ you pay; it's where and how, and how
much bullshit and misery you inflict along the way. You can employ
someone who is briefly less productive <omit questions of whether bypass
operations &c take more time from work than pregnancy> and get good
value out of their work, or you can not employ them, pay the taxes that
will support them anyway (albeit under much reduced circumstances and
only after many many agencies have taken their cut) and get _nothing_
in return. As long as you are part of society as a whole, trying to
push your problems off onto society is not going to do any good.

paul
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor)
Subject: Re: Companies can afford it, right?
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 20:39:49 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.152111.21720@panix.com> pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich) writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.031705.6344@tc.cornell.edu> bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr7.202337.24380@panix.com> pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich) writes:
>>>But seriously, if, as a society, we make it not in the economic
>>>interests of intelligent, ambitious, educated & hardworking women
>>>who want lives that extend beyond childcare and and housework to

>>To say "we as a society" is not enligthning, because there are so many
>>individuals in it, each with his own world view and priorities. 
>>A business owner may need the money for something which he values
>>more than continuing the employment of someone who is less productive. He
>>may need it, for example, to help paying expensive medical costs for
>>him(her)self or his close family, and I dont see anything bad in 
>>it. A person's NEED for employment does not automatically make someone 
>>else obliged to give it to him.

#include <standard_horror.h>

>True, but unless you're willing to see people starve in the streets, a
>person's need for food and shelter does oblige the rest of us to either
>help them find a way to earn it or to provide same out of general monies.

Please provide evidence that women who were fired because of their
pregnancy are more likely to end up in the streets than any other
fired/layed-off employee, or unsuccessful entrepreneur. It has been
pointed out many times in this newsgroup that most homeless persons
are men.

>You can employ
>someone who is briefly less productive...

And leave the productive one "starving in the street" ?

>... As long as you are part of society as a whole, trying to
>push your problems off onto society is not going to do any good.

No, I dont want to live in a society in which wealth-producing
entrepreneurs (or any other person, for that matter ) cannt function 
freely to better _their_ own lives (provided they dont cheat, of course ).

>paul

Dov Bai
Xref: sparky soc.men:8191 soc.women:8751
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Older men and younger women (advice needed)
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com
Date: 8 Apr 92 10:24:59 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: M&E (Division of EDS), Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: rivero

In article <rtkc8INNgao@agate.berkeley.edu>, epg@nature.berkeley.edu writes:
> 
> Why would a man not want to date a woman who is considerably younger
> than he is?
> 

  Because I don't know which wine goes with peanut butter!  :)

  Seriously. Age come into play only in the issue of whether
children arepart of the plan. Otherwise, age doesn't matter in either
direction. Friends is friends!





<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com Homo Cyberneticus-Computational Man  |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|    EARLY RESULTS FROM THE NEW YORK PRIMARY!                            |
|    Clinton                                              17%            |
|    Brown                                                22%            |
|    Elvis in the white jumpsuit                          57%            |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct
From: nathan engle <nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Men Are Not Cost Effective
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 11:12:08 -0500

In article <4591@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> jxxl@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil writes:
>  A Napa author has filed another salvo in the battle between the sexes,

    This may reveal my ignorance (what, again?), but what is a "Napa
author"? Is "Napa" an acronym for something? From the context it sounds
like a radical feminist organization.

-- 
Nathan Engle             Software Juggler
Indiana University       Dept of Psychology
nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Farmer stories
Date: 8 Apr 92 17:49:19 GMT
Reply-To: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Distribution: na
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <8091@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul) writes:
>Seems there was an old farmer, who had worked hard all his life, and had

	Here's another one:

	Right after they started up the state lottery over in Louisianna,
this old farmer wins the entire jackpot.  When they were interviewing him
for TV, someone asked him what he planned to do with the 3 million dollars
he'd just won.

	"Well", says the farmer, "I reckon Ah'll jest keep right on farming
until it's all gone".
								wr
From: baba@Tymnet.COM (Duane Hentrich)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: pro-choice == pro-(womens' only) choice?
Date: 17 Apr 92 17:47:05 GMT
Reply-To: baba@Tymnet.COM (Duane Hentrich)
Distribution: na
Organization: BT Tymnet Inc., San Jose CA

In article <8272@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>, stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul) writes:
|> Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. But give unto G_d that which
|> is G_d's.

Hey, no problemo! Just have old Julius' estate lawyers contact me and
I'll give back everything I have of his. And this goes double for G_d.

-- 
d'baba Duane M. Hentrich	...!hplabs!oliveb!tymix!baba
                                         baba@Tymnet.Com
Warning: Expicit Thoughts
From: fine@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (victoria.fineberg)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: When the father is out of a job.
Summary: Using your example...
Date: 15 Apr 92 22:55:46 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Apr15.214045.8230@tc.fluke.COM>, tron@tc.fluke.COM (Peter Barbee) writes:
> 
> Is it any wonder that men tend to earn more money - be it by overall
> average suppossedly equal pay for equal work?  When I was a kid
> I played on a soccer team one year.  I was a good athlete and was one
> of the better players on that team.  But the best player was this
> smaller, slower, less athletically gifted kid from England.  It turned
> out that his former home was just agog over soccer and all the kids
> had played it (soccer that is, not just kickball or somesuch) since
> they could walk.  He simply knew the game better than I did.  He knew
> how to be where, how to fake someone out, how not to be faked, etc etc
> so much better than I that he was able to make up any purely athletic
> advantages that I had.  We see the same thing in international
> basketball.
> 
	Peter,
	Using your example: What if somebody was interested in creating a
local team, without relying on a kid from England?  Would not the coach
give a somewhat preferential treatment to other players (like you) and have
a more balanced team as the end result?  Would you find that "fair"?
	Victoria