HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pepke@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Sexual victimization of 13 year old boy
Date: 10 Nov 92 22:54:58 GMT
Reply-To: pepke@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: Florida State University, but I don't speak for them

In article <ricko.721382208@ee.uts.EDU.AU> ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe) writes:
> If we had a decent patriarchy we could go to our
>fathers and confide in them and get comfort.

Brilliant.  In one sentence you have gone right to the heart of what is wrong
with the notion of The Patriarchy.

-EMP
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood)
Subject: Re: what is sexist? (was Re: Elle MacPhers
Reply-To: jsw@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 13 Nov 92 11:53:41 CST

In article 25567@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu, mkagalen@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (michael kagalenko) writes:
>In article <MUFFY.92Nov12152904@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>In article <38MD03ktbajB00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James Preston) writes:
>>> [...] My dictionary [...]
>>> Similarly, "sexism" is defined as:
>>> "Discrimination by members of one sex against the other, especially by
>>> men agains women, based on the assumption that one sex is superior."
>>> Notice that it clearly says *especially* by men against women, not
>>> exclusively.  And again, no qualifiers about the "non-dominant group".
>>
>>Well, that's very interesting.  If we accept your dictionary's
>>definition of sexism, it would follow that a woman who discriminated
>>against men, but did not assume that women were superior to men, would
>>not be sexist, since the discrimination has to be based on the
>>assumption that one sex is superior.  In that case, something like
>>affirmative action would not be sexist, since it is based on the
>>assumption that neither sex is superior.
>
>Exactly the opposite. If neither sex is superior/inferior, affirmative 
>actions simply aren't needed. I've noticed several times, that author 
>of this posting really has troubles with logical reasoning.  
>
>


Sir Superior, 

 Would you care to tell me WHO will determine when A.A. is not needed and 
would you tell me WHEN?  

Logically impaired, 

Jon
From: forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu (Eric Forbis)
Subject: Re: compromise (was Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Organization: University of Minnesota
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 04:39:18 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.174908.12773@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>Xref: news.cis.umn.edu soc.men:18562 soc.women:18526 alt.abortion.inequity:4987 talk.abortion:46362 alt.feminism:3792
>Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
>Path: news.cis.umn.edu!umn.edu!spool.mu.edu!agate!ames!decwrl!decwrl!netcomsv!netcom.com!payner
>From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
>Subject: Re: compromise (was Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
>Message-ID: <1992Nov5.174908.12773@netcom.com>
>Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
>References: <1992Nov4.154804.1308@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> <1da49nINNnl2@gap.caltech.edu> <1992Nov5.150606.21388@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>
>Distribution: na
>Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:49:08 GMT
>Lines: 60
>In article <1992Nov5.150606.21388@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> jrmo@volta.att.com (J.R.Moore) writes:
>>In article <1da49nINNnl2@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>>jrmo@volta.att.com (J.R.Moore) writes:
[material deleted]
>>
>>I think you missed my point.  Currently there is a lot of fuzziness
>>over abortion and in many places is not available and in others is
>>available up to nine months.  My proposal compromises, but clearly
>>defines a guarantee of a right to abortion for at least 8 weeks after 
>>conception, and prohibits abortions after, say 20 weeks.  Talk about
>>choice, let's just decide when a child gets its rights.  
>
>If you are talking about abortion, which takes place -before- birth,
>than the term child is incorrect. A child is born, there is no child
>until after birth. The term usually used is fetus, and it is correct
>for most of the pregnancy. 

I think the use of the word "child" is a personal preference, not a matter 
of definition.

child [ME, fr. OE cild; akin to Goth kilthei womb, Skt jathara belly] (bef. 
12c) 1 a : an unborn or recently born person
        --_Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary_

---------

Eric Forbis      forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 17:15:32 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.163044.14483@u.washington.edu> rons@hardy.u.washington.edu (Ronald Schoenberg) writes:
)In article <1992Nov5.080057.13807@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:

)>.59 cents to the dollar and all that rot.  Nay.  `Twas brillig.  Women
)>have equal control of the wealth.  Although they are not directly paid
)>50% of the income in the US, they somehow manage to independently spend
)>50% of the money.  Also, the single sex/age group with the most money is
)>women past retirement age.  Seems men don't hang around all that long
)>after retirement, and everything they worked for typically becomes all
)>her's.  Yes, the starving elderly women and diamonds....
)>
)
)I think you should check out the list of the world's wealthiest people
)- all men by the way.  Maybe you thought I was talking about income.
)Even when it's income it's not 50-50, but when it's wealth it's more
)like 90 to 10 in favor of men.

Sorry.  IMO you are both wrong, though it's suppose it's possible you're both
right, too :-).   From a 1983 US Dept of Labor publication ("Time of Change")

"Despite the fact that many people believe that women own or control most of
the wealth in the country, the data show that 60 percent of the top
wealtholders were men.  In fact, it was not until women were grouped at 70
years of age that they exceeded the number and percentage of wealthy men -
possibly because they had outlived the men in their families.
Further, it was only when assets exceed 500,000 dollars that the number
and percentage of women exeeded that of men.  It should be noted that there
were 155 women in this country with assets between $500,000 and $999,999 -
50.8 percent of the total - and 90 women with assets in execess of $1 million
50.3 percent of the total.  Proportionately, the largetst single wealthy
group consisted of single women (which included divorced persons).  WIdows
were the next largest group.  The data do not substantiate a belief that
women own or control the wealth in the country; in fact, the evidence is
to the contrary".

Similar data can be found in 'Statistical Abstracts'.

I do have some unaswered questions about how 'wealth' was defined and 
how marital property ownership was established, BTW.  (I believe that the
data ultimately came from tax returns, for what it's worth.)
Xref: sparky soc.men:18678 soc.women:18846 alt.abortion.inequity:4853 talk.abortion:46682 alt.feminism:3720
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: compromise (was Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Date: 5 Nov 92 17:42:45 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems

In <1992Nov4.154804.1308@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> jrmo@volta.att.com (J.R.Moore) writes:

>I hate these abortion discussions.  I have a compromise that will
>not be accepted by the extreme on either side.  I think many of
>the middle dwellers may like it.

>It would be illegal to interfere with the privacy of women and their
>doctors when no evidence of life or no evidence of sustainable life
>existed in the woman.  Therefore women would be guaranteed the right 
>to choose to terminate a pregnancy without any roadblocks.  And any
>rights granted for any medical reasons would be extended to include
>such procedures (eliminating exceptions for public funding).  Also
>once evidence of life or sustainable life exist, the state has a
>compelling interest to equally protect the lives of both the mother
>and child.  Therefore, no abortions could be performed after that point,
>except in life-threatening cases.

>The result would be two-fold.  Women would truly be guaranteed the right 
>choose for somewhere between 8 and 20 weeks.  Women who have not opted
>to terminate pregnancy by default would have freely decided to carry

[deletions galore]

>Joe Moore

Under this rule, I would be a batchelor today. When Florence and I
met, she was recently widowed. About 3-4 years before she noticed
a weight gain and consulted her doctor. Both her GY-OBN and the
operator of the sonogram maintained that she was pregnant. Her
husband knew better and demanded they operate. They removed
a 12-15 lb tumor. The doctor's conclusion afterward was that
another month would have been too late. However, it took her
husband's demands to get her on the table.

Now, if any here wonder why I am pro-women's-rights, it may be
clearer to you. You seem to forget that they call it the
*practice* of medicine, and maybe one day they will get it
right.

Sure, I get a little rabid at times in this group. Its mainly
when some young male puppy tries to pontificate on what women
should be allowed or not allowed. Then it starts me thinking
that I would not be sharing the joy, warmth, love, and passion
of this delightfull woman, and I can get just a little upset.

REB
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Let's Play StipU (1)
Date: 5 Nov 92 13:32:28 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.003354.19643@unislc.uucp> erc@unislc.uucp (Ed Carp) writes:
>Adrienne Regard (regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com) wrote:
>
>: Ah, but there is the upside, too.  FATHERS who attend PTA meetings, or
>: field trips with their kids, or go to the grocery store with little Johnney
>: in the basket are positively fawned upon for their fatherliness, whereas
>: women are just doing their duty (-:.
>: 
>: There are a bazillion stereotypes.  Without *supporting* any of them, it
>: is probably still useful to acknowledge that some exist, and discover 
>: rebuttals to those which don't appear to be much use in advocating change
>: or justifying ones reasons for change.
>
>When I was visiting my sister in San Antonio, she asked me if I wanted to
>"borrow" her year-old-son to take to the mall.  She explained that "it's *much*
>easier to pick up women that way when you have a cute kid with you."
>
>Women tend to fawn over little kids - and the men with them.
>
>I think that's one stereotype I *like*! :) :)

I think it works with puppies, but not so well with kids.
These "fawning" women tend to assume you're married.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
From: charleen@ADS.COM (Charleen Bunjiovianna)
Subject: Re: Abortion and humanity
Organization: The Original Estrogen-Crazed Lust Bunnies
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 14:57:28 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.055927.1713@smds.com> rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes:
>[etc.]
>she falls in with the Reverend Nehehmiah Scudder, a charismatic televangilist
>with a taste for hot young black flesh.

Oh, don't worry, Lazarus Long and the Time Corps will save the day.

Charleen

--
I went into a McDonald's yesterday and said, "I'd like some fries."  The girl
at the counter said, "Would you like some fries with that?"
                    -- Jay Leno
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father
X-To: RICHARD LYNCH
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 04:18:00 GMT

lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes...
RL> In article <1992Oct20.225628.28756@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid
RL> ld.org> writes:

RL> [all gone]

RL> >I'm just interested in opinions here.  If anyone feels like flaming, please
RL> >direct all flames to alt.flame, thank you.

RL> The rules you seem to favor seem "fair", but they could only be enforced by
RL> tyranny.

Well, if *that* is so, then the same ought to be said about "Affirmative Action"
and similar laws.  "AA" is an attempt to legislate fairness, and it is quickly
seeming more and more as though those who are preaching freedom from oppression,
are quickly becoming the most authoritarian....  (as usually happens in Banana
Republics where a new leader starts a revolution and overthrows the dictator...
then replaces the dictator...)

Or, as The Who would say:

"Meet the new boss.  Same as the old boss".

---
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 * I am Popeye of Borg.  Prepare to be askimilgrated.
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood)
Subject: Re: Abortion and humanity
Reply-To: jsw@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 12 Nov 92 08:44:05 CST

In article 2133@swbatl.sbc.com, cp7927@oktext.sbc.com (Caryn S. Prater) writes:
>In article <1dq3b1INNj56@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>jsue@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey L. Sue) writes:
>>
>>>Also, why do you assume that the
>>>woman is more important than the "defined" life inside her?
>>
>>Because I am an adult woman, and I *know* I am more important than
>>an unborn foetus.
>>
>>							--  Michal 
>>
>
>Does it make you wonder if Jeffery would feel the same way if he 
>were a woman.  Imagine being told that you must give up your
>personhood to become an incubator.  What the hell is defined life
>Jeffrey???   
>
>Caryn
>

  Imagine being told that you must give up your personhood (fatherhood)
to become an incubator (wallet).

  

Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Feinsteinism
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com
Date: 11 Nov 92 13:14:47 GMT
Organization: EDS Unigraphics, Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: crane

In article <4320039@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com>, kurts@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Kurt Strain) writes:
> Here in California we elected two new women Senators.  A lot of men helped
> to make their victories possible.  They are Dianne Feinstein and Barbara
> Boxer.  So what do I see on the news last night?  There's both of them
> standing hand-in-hand and Dianne quips "The roosters may crow all night, but
> the hens get the job done."  Thanks, Dianne, sorry us worthless roosters
> voted your ass in.  I guess being a new woman Senator she's entitled to
> certain female Senatorial low blows.
-- 

  Why are you surprised? Weren't you listening to all the pre-election
rhetoric from the female candidates? Most of it followed right behind
Barbera Jordan's comments about males being biologically incapable
of empathy and compassion.  Harriet Woods claimed that women, as a class,
are better decision makers than men. Governor Ann Richards of Texas
stated that even the most sympathetic males were simply unable to
process information the way women do. Carol Braun described her male
counterparts as being all the same, out of a "cookie cutter".

  So, now that these women have won their election (and, by the way,
the majority of women running for office lost their races) on
a platform of male bashing, why do you expect them to be any less
insensitive and sexist now?

  When you voted for these women, did you really think they would
address the isues of inequity in the family and divorce courts? 
Or enforce visitation rights? Or male parental rights? Or
the epidemic of false sexual accusations against men?  Certainly
not Boxer. She's authored some of the most blatently anti-male family
court legislation in California history.  Her bill on domestic violence
address the issue strictly in terms of female victims and male abusers.

  I can understand men voting for Fienstien, she did a good job as Mayor 
of San Fransisco, and showed a great deal of fairness. But I can't 
understand any man who has read Barbera Boxer's proposed legislation 
actually voting for her. She neither understands or even cares about the 
rights of the male half of the population. Everything she does from now 
until she's voted out of office will only increase factionalism and 
gender based hostility.


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com  "Middle-aged Mutant Ninja Animator" |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|      If Thomas Jefferson were alive today, he'ld be ASSASSINATED!      |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 06:45:10 GMT

In article <1d80mlINN74d@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>jrmo@volta.att.com (J.R.Moore) writes:
>
>>Either the baby is a part of the woman's body and under her sole control,
>>or it's a separate entity, deserving of rights.
>
>Or, it can be a seperate entity but not deserving of rights.  Sort-of
>like women used to be.

Or sort-of like men are now.

Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM 

Xref: sparky soc.men:19069 soc.women:19317 alt.abortion.inequity:5029 talk.abortion:47658 alt.feminism:4169
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Date: 10 Nov 92 22:25:59 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<forb0004.49.721188466@student.tc.umn.edu> forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu (Eric Forbis) said:
><1992Nov3.183618.22589@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>jrmo@volta.att.com (J.R.Moore) writes ...
>>>If the fetus is not a separate entity deserving of rights, namely the
>>>right to life, than it is distinctly part of the woman and under her sole 
>>>control.
>>
>>there is another alternative you haven't considered: that the woman's
>>body is her own, and she may evict anyone else using it against her
>>will.
>
>Does anyone have the right to "evict" when such an action results in the 
>death of the evictee? 

Yup.  See 'rape'.  A woman is 'allowed' by law to whatever force is
necessary to evict the man from her body.

...
>Believe it or not, my argument isn't against abortion; rather, the notion 
>that women somehow have a "right" to kill.

Everyone has a right to kill.  It's the circumstance that is pertinent.
You have a right to use lethal force against someone trying to enter your
body without your consent.

What's the problem?


Gordon
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: War on Fathers (was: StipU whatever
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 19:55:50 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.093232.10847@walter.cray.com> jsw@cray.com writes:

>>Also note that in 1987, a whopping 6.2% of divorced women were supposed
>>to recieve alimony payments. 
>
>What percent of wives worked in 1987? Mythical beast #2, that ogres with
>dicks beat wives into stayin' home and have babies, THEN walk out on
>them. 

What?  

(Off the top of my head, I believe it is about 60-75% of wives worked in
1987.  I can look it up if you really want the figure.  I have no idea
what your point is however.)

>>Child-support payments are supposed to be paid to about half (51.3% in 
>>1987) of the women who divorced with children under 21.  The average 
>>payment for one child in 1987 was $2,247/yr. For three children, the 
>>average payment was $3,368.  All of these figures have been *remarkably* 
>>stable since 1978.
>
> Again, statistics made up out of thin air. 

What?  Wow.  Not many people are so un-empirical as to accuse the census
of sorcery.  Gosh.  And they say feminists ignore statistics they
don't like...

>The only UNremarkable statistic that has remained stable is that 90% of
>the women in divorce retain custody of their children!

And of course, *this* statistic is the *ONLY* one not created out of
thin air!  

>>source: Child Support and Alimony: 1987.  US Bureau of the Census,
>>Current Population Reports.
>
>The US Bureau of the Census collects data that is worthless.

Boy you are funny.

rini


Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.sex
From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Subject: Re: WET DREAMS: How often? Why?
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 11:32:29 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.235512.29164@philabs.philips.com> nrh@philabs.philips.com (Nikolaus R. Haus) writes:
>I was wondering: if your 'average' man were to go without sex of any sort (with other

Since I work right alongside your average man, I asked him.  He did not
like this topic.  He stated, "Where would you possibly find such a person?
Your average man who goes `completely' without sex, including pulling
his noodle?  Well, already, you're not talking average man.  You're
talking fantasy--like I wonder why this guy is asking--must be some
weirdo who masturbates over statistics of people having wet dreams."

>pwople or by himself), how often would he have wet dreams? And, more interestingly,

He said, "About 4 or 5 times."  

Well, since he gave no units, I asked, "4 or 5 times what?"

He said, "4 or 5 times, Aaron."

"No."

"Yes."

"No, I mean 4 or 5 times, what? - a year?, a mo-"

"A d- ... a week."

I hope that clarifies it for you.

>_why_ would he have wet dreams?

He said, "Because."

Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM 
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood)
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Reply-To: jsw@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 6 Nov 92 10:12:16 CST

In article 19539@wetware.com, diana@wetware.com (CatWoman ) writes:

>When I had a job where my male supervisor put up a 
>Penthouse Calendar, I thought about it for a while.
>I was not offended by it, but I WAS vaguely disturbed.
>When I realized what I was disturbed by - that as a
>straight woman I had no interest in the calendar - I
>rectified the situation by going out and getting a
>Playgirl Calendar, and hung it next to the Penthouse
>one.  We traded snide remarks for a day or two - but
>the calendars - both of them - stayed up for the full
>year.  
>
>THIS has been my attitude - If I'm not that comfortable
>with what <other person> has up, I can choose a couple
>of options.  I can not look at it, if it is a situation
>where that is possible; or if I am "forced" to look at
>it due to it's placement - I can put up something next
>to it that *I* want to see (and granted, I'll try to 
>find something that will equally be disturbing to the
>other person).  Then the ball is in THEIR court.  If 
>they object - so will I.  If they don't, then I won't
>either.
>
>Diana



 Over the years I have seen quite a few calenders. Most were isolated
areas away from customers like the shop area of the Harley Dealer, garage
or warehouse. My guess was that 99% of the calenders and pinup stuff was
of the playboy variety where breasts and buttocks were shown. Your former
male supervisor's calender from Penthouse would have had crotch shots 
detailing swollen moist clits. What kind of a work place was this, Donna
Lee's Sauna on N. Washington St in the warehouse district of Minneapolis?
I would have set up a vcr with a tasteless donkey/farmgirl video and left
it locked on so that he couldn't stop it and then asked HIS boss if
anybody objected? Maybe pipe the audio to share it with everybody. 
Personally, a garage mechanic without a "Snap-On" girl poster plastered
on his tool box lid just wouldn't be right. It's one of the qualifying
items I check before I'll let him do any service on my FXSTC.
Newsgroups: soc.men