HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: pro-choice == pro-(womens' only) choice?
Date: 7 Apr 92 22:32:25 GMT
Distribution: na

Beverly Huntsberger writes

+ 	It's called "My Body". Yeah, say that.
+ 	See how it feels.
+ 
+ 	Not the same as "my wallet", imnsho.

Really? You work to put money in your wallet, no? You use your
body to work, no? Now, imagine 25% (or so) of your money magically
disappearing from you wallet for 18 years. 

Assuming you work 40 hrs/wk for 50 wk/yr for 18 yrs, you will
find:

# hr = (40*50*18)/4 = 9000 hr = 375 days

of your time went to someone else.

Now, Bev, tell me again that's not My Body.

K'Char - the 25% makes the #'s come out nifty - use yer own if you like...
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: kranitz@mr.med.ge.com (Wes Kranitz 4-6857 MRCE)
Subject: Re: Smelling The Roses (was Re: Companies can afford it, right?)
Organization: GE Medical Systems
	<2652@unisql.UUCP> <34028@unix.SRI.COM>
	<1992Apr5.170654.12024@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: 8 Apr 92 16:21:34

Bill, Valerie, and Susan,

I think these feeling come with age. When I was young, I had the same feelings
Wharfie has. The company and team were everything. I had no time for people
who wouldn't pull their own weight. As I got older (and I'm probably old enough
to be a lot of the posters father), I discovered that most of that was crap
put out by managment to make you work harder for their enrichment. It's no use
arguing with people like Wharfie as they can't see why they should "stop to smell
the Roses".

As for this bit about not having money. That's balonie. Most of the owners that
spout that live in big houses and drive fancy cars. Look at their salaries. If
your making 35,000 the higher ups in your company are probably making over $100,000.
And who's doing most of the work?? Wharfie, not the president of the company. How
do I know this??? I have been upper management for several companies (including
my own).

I finally decided I was sick of it. Now my Wife and Daughter are the most
important things in the world. I take Rosanne (my wife) out to plays and special
events. I leave work at work (ie, I no longer bring work home). I'm happier. And
guess what??? I make more than I ever did in the rat race. And every company I've
started since then, I've put an emphases on the people and their family. 

I'd like to hear what Wharfie has to say 20 years from now.

Wes
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: learn@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (William Vajk (igloo))
Subject: Re: Smelling The Roses (was Re: Companies can afford it, right?)
Reply-To: learn@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (William Vajk (igloo))
Organization: Dares No Organization Like Dis Organization
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 12:34:39 GMT

In article <1164@smds.UUCP> rh@smds.UUCP (Richard Harter) pontificates:

>Er, do you have any notion what a business plan is?  I thought so.
>A business plan describes how you mean to run a business. 
 
[Blah...blah...blah]

Duh.

As the owner/operator of a successful small business which has supported 
a family for over 20 years, I just happen to know what a business plan is. 
You might succeed a bit better in discussions and not appear quite so 
stupid and arrogant if you didn't assume that all .edu accounts were 
owned by inexperienced students. On the other hand, your comments about 
Sue appearing to be a consumer of seed corn coupled with others to Valerie
and to me would lead the average reader to the conclusion that your 
discussion style includes demeaning individuals as a matter of course.

>The overall failure rate for startup businesses of all kinds is ~90% 
>(SBA statistics). The overwhelming majority of these are small, 
>single-proprietor retail establishments. 

[Blah...blah...blah]

Interesting thing about SBA books. They never really change in content.

>Of course, success rates are lower if you count as failures all people
>who think about starting a business and never do.  Sort of like counting
>people who never went in the water as deaths by drowning because they
>didn't swim successfully.

If you read what was written instead of presuming you know it all, you'd
note that the divergence of opinion stems in an understanding of when
it is a business actually begins. I place the birth of a business at
the point in time when the plan is completed, and the individual begins
to expend time and energy to secure funding, partners, whatever, as that
is the begining of taking risk. Granted, the risk is, relatively speaking,
small, unless it is a full time project with no other income supporting
the effort. Infant death of a business is still the death of a business.

>Bill goes on -- he says some sage things and some silly things.  But
>they are rooted, IMHO, in a substantial ignorance of economics, sociology,
                  ^^^^
>and any real understanding of how institutions work and what they can and
>can't do.  I'm sure he thinks the same of me.  And, to tell the truth,
>I think discussing issues with him is a waste of time, and I ain't agonna
>do it.

A sign of humility? Is there really hope after all ?????? Can't be. Guy reads 
perhaps a couple of articles from me, obviously has reading comprehension 
difficulties, and comes up with a comment regarding an entire spectrum of 
my knowledge. Sigh.

>It's all yours Bill.  Just reply and you have the last word.

Naw, sweetheart, the way you PONTIFICATE about issues is a waste of your 
time, and mine. I'm ever so greatful it is over so soon.

Bill Vajk
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Feminists Growing Old Alone
Date: 16 Apr 92 22:21:53 GMT
Reply-To: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <VVZBJB1w164w@netlink.cts.com> jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
>of young women to follow their limbic programming instead of using
>their youthful sexual power to socialize young men, turns young men
>into barbarians and young women into whores.  [...]
>Sexual and economic exploitation of the 50's boomers by males born
>before 1950 is pretty much responsible for feminism and for the 
>explosion of homosexual behavior in younger males.  Thus

	"Don't bother to adjust your television set.  You have just
entered... The Outer Limits!"  Listen, Jim, you're not supposed to eat
them little mushrooms growin' on the cow-pies.  They'll make ya crazy.

>There are few things sadder than a lonely old whore stewing in 
>her hatred of nature, especially when she was led into the life

	Well, there's always some poor looney-tune what's got loose from
his strait-jacket long enough to find a terminal and post some delusional
paranoid conspiracy theory to Usenet...  Them guys is pretty sad, Jim.

								W.rat
From: gross@befvax.uchicago.edu
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Getting screwed, wanna talk?!
Date: 14 Apr 92 16:10:17 GMT
Reply-To: gross@befvax.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago, Dept of Molecular Genetics

In article <1992Apr13.231300.1276@bvc.edu>, stougheric@bvc.edu (The Wease) writes:
>	Hey...I'm huh-way new to this 'soc.men' thing, here, but
>I'd like to say 'hi' anyway, so...
>
>	I was wondering, if I brought up a situation where I got
>totally 'f*cked' and would like to hear some advice on it, would
>anyone respond?  This seems like an interesting way of talking
>about your problems...sorry if I'm getting the purpose if this
>netword wrong...

Go for it.
Some people might have had similar experiences, and people have 
discussed a variety of situations they have been in on the net.
Since both men and women read this group regularly, you might
get responses from people of either gender.

>	Eric 

Leon Gross
I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV.
From: kurts@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Kurt Strain)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1992 18:33:18 GMT
Subject: Re: SIDS as population control?!?!
Organization: Milky Way Galaxy
Newsgroups: soc.men

In soc.men, dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber) writes:


> By the way, do you seriously believe
> the population level in the US has anything to do with the birthrate in the
> Third World?  Now if we could increase the standard of living of the Third
> World countries sufficiently, their reproductive rate would drop.  This is a
> fairly well known fact.  Of course this does require that the industrialized
> nations get their act together and stop wasting so much, but trying to reduce
> their use of resources by reducing their population (which is already pretty
> much ZPG at this point) is back-asswards.

What are you whining about here?  You say instead of reducing overpopulation,
desperate poverty is the solution? 

Do you honestly believe that the population of the Eastern US had nothing
to do with the wipe-out of the American Indians?  Do you honestly believe 
that Japan's deforestation of the globe to get raw lumber has no impact?
Do you believe that the World Bank providing loans to third world high-impact
projects have no effect, and that it has nothing to do with the US?
Do you believe the world's climate cannot shift by industry?  Do you always
have your head in the sand, Mr. hero baby saver?  Am I supposed to be 
impressed by your grand principles, the ones that have put us in the pit
where we are?  By the way, our overpopulation is still becoming overpopulated,
and that's not cause for celebrating ZPG in my opinion.

>p.s. Have you reduced your consumption of resources by 1000000 (I believe that was
> the ratio quoted by a previous poster)?

No, I am not as heroic as you in making us all poor.

>p.p.s. I hope to God I'm not sitting at the restaurant table next to yours when
>you start choking on something, because I'm not sure I'd bother saving you;
>after all, your death would enable thousands of Bangladeshis to live a better
>life, no?

Hey, hero, I never made such stupid remarks as you.  Go choke and die
yourself, hero.  I won't save you, either.  Give all your money to charity
and cast away your worldly possessions.  There's a place in heaven for you,
I'm sure.
From: stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Women for Nerdy White Males?
Date: 17 Apr 92 00:47:56 GMT
Distribution: na

Duane Hentrich writes
+ In article <Ry2BJB1w164w@netlink.cts.com>, jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)  
writes:
+ |> For all you nerdy white males out there, here are some services
+ |> that might be of interest (advertised in a southern californian 
+ |>  "singles" tabloid -- can't vouch for these folks):
+ 
+ Do you sit around and try to think up ways to insult men? Or am I 
+ missing the smilies somewhere?

You just gotta read between the lines...

K'Char
From: steinar@otello.solan.unit.no (Cindy Kandolf)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: SNUFF FILMS sighted in TIME MAGAZINE!!! (Dworkin and MacKinnon, too)
Date: 14 Apr 92 17:41:03 GMT
Organization: Flodnak, Inc., Trondheim, Norway

Charles Herrick writes:
>Note that pornography is being equated with violence and snuff films
>by the feminazis again.

Note the term "feminazis" being used by someone wishing to discredit 
anything that _might_ be feminist again.  Quite honestly i wonder if
the people who use that term ever think about what the Nazis were.
Scratch that, what the Nazis are, because they're still around.

>What about all the pornography where the women are obviously enjoying
>themselves?
>
>Or do the feminist really want to imply that all females, like them,
>are sexually disfunctional and unable to enjoy healthy sex?

There is, i think, an obvious difference between soft-core porn, in which
all parties involved are (or for the sake of the picture pretending to be)
enjoying themselves, and hard-core porn, where violence is involved and
not all involved are (seem to be) enjoying themselves.

Films in which one person appears to be murdered are pretty clearly in
the second category.  We're in agreement so far, i hope?

Now, maybe the reason you hear so little about soft-core porn is that
most people don't feel it does any harm, and so ignore it.  And maybe
the reason you hear so much about violent porn is because a fairly
vocal group feels it _does_ do harm.  And after a while, since
soft-core is so seldom spoken about, the word "pornography" comes to
mean for some people only the more violent type.

I hope this isn't too far-fetched for you.

-Cindy Kandolf
 cindy@solan.unit.no
 Trondheim, Norway
From: stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: pro-choice == pro-(womens' only) choice?
Date: 17 Apr 92 00:43:06 GMT
Distribution: na

Beverly Huntsberger writes

+ 	(A man once reminded his friends that their money
+ 	was made by the government, so they might as well
+ 	give it back to the government.)

That man was asked whether it was morally right to pay taxes to an
oppressive government.

Do remember what he said immediately after that??? Are you willing
to live that part too, Bev?

K'Char

Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. But give unto G_d that which
is G_d's.
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Recovery
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 16:38:42 GMT

In article <9773@bgsuvax.bgsu.edu> valdes@bgsu.edu (oscar Valdes) writes:
)In article <1992Apr2.172429.4790@lmpsbbs.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:

)>But hubby stopped having good sex because the wife was such a nag.
)
)	But the wife was such a nag because she was always horny.  And the
)reason she was always horny is because hubby was lousy in bed.

And hubby was lousy in bed because the wife was such a nag......
It's amazing how much better he 'performed' with those 20 year olds, isn't
it?  Didn't think the old goat had it in em, did ya?

)>The wife was such a nag because she didn't have a life of her own.
)
)	So she went out and got one.  Now she is not horny at home anymore 
)and falls asleep like an angel as soon as she gets in bed  with hubby.

That's too logical.  You've spoiled the whole game of 'Who Is At Fault'
by simply solving the problem rather than trying to point The Finger Of
Blame. 

If this keeps up, you might even approach discussing the real problems of an
actual relationship, rather than relying on bigoted gender stereotypes!
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: richh@tigger.jvnc.net (RICHH)
Subject: Re: What Does WoMan Want?
Originator: richh@tigger.jvnc.net
Organization: JvNCnet
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 19:09:49 GMT

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

<drivel>

Idiot.

RICHH
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
From: repnomar@leland.Stanford.EDU (Janet M. Lafler)
Subject: Re: Maternity Leave and Child Benefits 
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 04:06:49 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.201347.23007@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> ash@sumex-aim.stanford.edu (David Ash) writes:

>>>In a properly structured society, having a kid should be absolutely
>>>the last thing a poor person would think of doing.  Anything else
>>>should be more worth doing.  A kid is a really major expense, and
>>>a system which helps poor people afford this expense is really
>>>twisted in my view.

For *really* poor people, having children is not an expense, it's a way to 
add to the family's income and prospects for the future.  We middle class
people see children as "expensive," as non-workers; in most Third World
nations this is not the case.  Among poor people in the U.S., the rate of
child labor is much lower, but children are still not the expense that they
are in middle-class families, because many of the things that we consider
essential to childhood are not provided for them.  Some families pool the
resources of all their members to send one child to college and/or professional
school so that s/he can then help out the family as a whole.  Children are
only "expensive" from a certain point of view; they may also support their
parents later in life.

There are also all sorts of cultural and religious reasons for preferring 
large families.  Those values are not my own, but I think they need to be 
respected and taken seriously, not dismissed as irrational.

/Janet

-- 
send mail to repnomar@leland.stanford.edu
Purdy...lowered his voice.  "Now.  We never had this conversation."   B.J. was 
alarmed to hear it.  Who _had_ had this conversation and what had he been 
doing while they had it?
Xref: sparky soc.men:8563 soc.women:9083 soc.singles:11448
From: williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Women for Nerdy White Males?
Date: 17 Apr 92 00:15:18 GMT
Reply-To: williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com (Dances with Drums)
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: athena

In article <1559@tymix.Tymnet.COM> baba@Tymnet.COM (Duane Hentrich) writes:
>In article <Ry2BJB1w164w@netlink.cts.com>, jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
>|> For all you nerdy white males out there, here are some services
>|> that might be of interest (advertised in a southern californian 
>|>  "singles" tabloid -- can't vouch for these folks):
>
>Do you sit around and try to think up ways to insult men? Or am I 
>missing the smilies somewhere?
---

	Why would would you take it as an insult?

	It either applies to you or not.  If it does, it is fact.  If it
doesn't, then you can ignore it.  Either way it doesn't seem insulting.

	However, a group that could take it as an insult might be
white females.  That rich, kind, perhaps eccentric white males would
actually prefer a woman to a different culture and that there are
several organizations catering to that preference says something about
the women in our culture -- or at least the ones these males have
interacted with.

    Being a male ready to give up on women and become a monk (I'm not
attracted in men, so that isn't an option), I can understand the desire
to find a woman not from this culture.  It seems a large number of women
I interact with are very strident in one way or another in their demeanor.
Trouble is, I eventually react to strife with equality.  That negates
most relationships, so for me, find a woman who is interests me yet
is not strident is key.

-wat-
--
***  Dances with Drums  ***
***    DoD #0492   Steed: Kawasaki '80 750LTD                             ***
:: If pro-choice means choice after conception, does this apply to men too? ::
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Who's Bashing Whom? (was: Supposed "Non-Patriarchal" Societies)
From: econrad@cs.wright.edu (Eric van Fossen Conrad)
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 21:16:38 GMT
Organization: Wright State University

From article <1992Apr6.101251.1@mdcbbs.com>, by rivero@mdcbbs.com:
>> 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.

Ah yes!  Lysistrata.  A most delightful play!

-- 
-- Eric Conrad
This space for rent.
Xref: sparky soc.men:8242 soc.women:8803
From: neilg@fraser.sfu.ca (Neil K. Guy)
Subject: Re: Loyalty Oaths
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 08:30:26 GMT

karplus@cse.ucsc.edu (Kevin Karplus) writes:

>    The State of California, by constitutional and legislative provision,
>    requires that all citizens receiving salaries from the State, before
>    entering upon the duties of their employment, subscribe to an oath to
>    support, defend, and bear true faith and allegiance to the
>    Constitutions of the United States and of California.

 Wow! Now that sounds *truly* bizarre! Out of curiosity, when did the
aforementioned "constitutional and legal provision" come into effect?
And does anyone know of any precedents set re: such an oath. (ex:
someone refusing to sign, someone charged with breaking his or her
word because s/he failed to "support, defend," blah blah the two
constitutions? Just amazed and wondering...

 - Neil K. (n_k_guy@sfu.ca)
Newsgroups: soc.libraries.talk
Subject: oaths
From: rbp@sutro.SFSU.EDU (Bob Pasker)
Date: 15 Apr 92 09:01:55 PDT
Distribution: world
Organization: San Francisco State U. -- Dept. of History

for info on oaths, check out ellen schrecker, _no ivory tower:
mccarthyism & the university_, (w.w. norton: 1986). the book has an
excellent bibliography to.
-- 
-- bob pasker 
-- rbp@sutro.sfsu.edu 
-- not speaking for: San Francisco State -- Dept. of History
  
Newsgroups: soc.libraries.talk
From: kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: Loyalty Oaths
Originator: kjenks@krakatoa
Keywords: Loyalty Oaths
Organization: NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 17:13:48 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.213602.29062@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> fischer@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (W. T. Fischer) writes:
>I am trying to locate copies of loyalty oaths that state and local goverments,
>especially libraries, force their new employees to sign.  

State and local governments have no monopoly on oaths:

     "[I swear] I will support and defend the Constitution of the
      United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I
      will bear faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this
      obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of
      evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties
      of the office on which I am about to enter.  So help me God."

        -- Standard Form 61, Appointment Affidavits, the oath taken
           by all new Federal employees.

-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
      kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov  (713) 483-4368
      ...and a fellow Illini.

     "It is mankind's manifest destiny to bring our humanity into space,
      to colonize this galaxy.  And as a nation, we have the power to
      determine whether America will lead or will follow.

      I say that America must lead."  -- Ronald Reagan
From: gordon@midden.une.oz.au (Gordon Smith)
Newsgroups: soc.libraries.talk
Subject: Re: Congrats Larry and a question...
Date: 14 Apr 92 10:09:49 GMT

From article <1992Apr14.034216.14544@newshost.anu.edu.au>, by tony@library.anu.edu.au (Tony Barry):
>>       -- people who might know about AARN developements,
>>          especially plans for collaboration among libraries
> 
> Try  me  [ ;-)] or Geoff.Huston@arrnet.edu.au
	Just a typo...
                     Geoff.Huston@aarnet.edu.au
                                  ^^^^
Gordon.
From: fischer@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (W. T. Fischer)
Newsgroups: soc.libraries.talk
Subject: Loyalty Oaths
Summary: Looking for discussion of loyalty oaths
Keywords: Loyalty Oaths
Date: 14 Apr 92 21:36:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: ux1.1992Apr14.213602.29062
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana




I am trying to locate copies of loyalty oaths that state and local goverments,
especially libraries, force their new employees to sign.  The University of
Illinois Student Chapter of the American Library Association will be
presenting a resolution opposing loyalty oaths at the ALA meeting this summer.

There is a brief article in the April 1st issue of Library Journal about our
crusade.

I'd appreciate copies of actual current loyalty oaths and any discussion of
loyalty oaths in libraries.

Thanks.


Bill Fischer
Internet: fischer@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu

410 DKH
1407 W. Gregory Dr.
Urbana, IL 61801

--
This is a .signature file.