HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Separate but equal is
X-To: LJF
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 18:27:00 GMT

farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes...
LJ> In article <1992Jul1.012914.9271@zooid.guild.org> goid@zooid.guild.org (Will
LJ> eves) writes:
LJ> (deleted stuff about high school)


LJ> Steeves, count me in as as one soc.women poster who appreciates the
LJ> time and effort you take to inform us just how bad you have it.

Not just me...everyone.


LJ> That's exactly why I read soc.women.  In fact, if there were a
LJ> newsgroup called soc.women-have-it-much-easier-than-straight-white-
LJ> men, I'd subscribe to it.  Maybe we can put it up for a vote.

Sheesh, I'm glad that at least *you* have it easier.  :-)

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                     "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Come on in;  my day was going badly anyway.
From: Eric_S_Klien@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Electronic Matchmaker
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 22:58:07 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: world

Women, I am about to launch a free electronic matching service on 
Usenet.  Unfortunately, more guys than gals have expressed an 
interest so far.  If you would like to see the fourth draft of my 
questionnaire so we can alter it to also fit women's needs as well as 
men's, either send me mail or look at the copy I posted in 
alt.personals.
 
This service is serious and I already have 119 men and 86 women signed
up so far.  The site of the service has already been selected and
programmers are being lined up for the construction of the listserver.
 
                                                            Eric Klien
From: ginger@ssc-vax.boeing.com (Ginger Grover)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Provocative Questions
Date: 24 Jul 92 16:16:11 GMT
Organization: Boeing Defense and Space Group, Seattle WA

Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
> Well...count up another Female Supremacist...
>
>GG>                         THELMA/LOUISE '92
>
>Yep.

So glad you liked it . . . :-)

Ginger 	uw-beaver!ssc-vax!ginger OR ginger@ssc-vax.ds.boeing.com

"Men often claim that women make fools of them.  This is quite untrue.  No
woman ever makes a fool of a man, she merely presents him with the opportunity
to realize his natural capactities."
 		    	   - Ashley Montague, _The_Natural_Superiority_of_Women_
-- 

      "The opposite to love is not hate, but power.  Power obliterates
      another's individuality."  - Marion Woodman, "The Pregnant Virgin"
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Always in motion, the
X-To: BETH WEISS
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 01:35:00 GMT

BW> Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women
BW> Subject: Re: Always in motion, the future, hee hee (was: Re: Foetal Transfer
BW> Date: 28 Jun 92 16:12:10 GMT
BW> Followup-To: talk.abortion
BW> Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson

Beth Weiss writes...
BW> markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes:
BW> >Fetal transfer replacing abortion:

BW> >Will Steeves writes...
BW> >>Not really.  If the procedure is equally as safe as an abortion, then not
BW> >>even the woman loses, well, except her control as to whether the child liv
BW> >>or dies.  THIS is why I say that foetal transfer will revolutionise this
BW> >>entire debate, because it will FINALLY separate the rights of the "woman's
BW> >>body" from the "baby's right to life".

BW> >6. The process for terminating pregnancy must be implemented in such a way
BW> >   to ensure the maximum likelihood of the fetus's survival.

BW> This is an interesting idea, but I'd like to see medical research
BW> backing it up as a possibility.  Currently, doctors can't even
BW> re-implant a _wanted_ ectopic pregnancy.  I wasn't aware that they
BW> could remove a fetus _and_ be able to implant it in another woman.  Do
BW> you know something about this I haven't read?


You are correct, Beth.  This technology does *not* exist at the moment.  What
I was advocating (and Mark, I did *not* read any of your messages, so my
suggestion was formulated quite independently of your prediction <-: ) was
that science begin extensive research into discovering a method to do this.

My guess is that it *might* involve a derivative of RU-486....  *That* could
be a problem...


MARK: BTW, regarding your suggestion that the Supreme Court will rule that
      family law statutues will apply to foetuses...

      That would implicitly imply that the Court *will* decide that the foetus
      is a person.  Are you so sure that they will do that?

      (I certainly know that they will *never* do that up here in Canada!)


 Will
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * No I don't speak Klingon.  Do you??
Xref: sparky soc.women:13986 soc.men:13610
From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Marine Corps Boot Camp
Date: 23 Jul 92 04:09:48 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Jul21.204524.18758@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:

>The last thing I recall hearing about abuses in the military - think it was
>even the Marines - was when somebody was abused so badly in training that
>they died - drowned, I think.  don't recall the exact details and/or the
>results, of the investigation/publicicity, unfortunately. I very much doubt
>it got as high as the Secretary of the Navy, which is what's apparently
>happening with the Tailhook incident.  My impression is also that this was
>just one incident of many - it's the sort of thing that  tends to happen
>perodically.  [Not to mention actual accidents rather than abuses, which
>probably tend to happen even more often.  I think some military training is
>done with live ammo, for instance.]

The incident you are thinking of happened at Paris Island during the mid
fifties.  A drill instructor was marching his platoon through a swamp and
about a dozen recruits drowned.  There was a huge furor at the time.  The
DI was court martialed, busted to private, and got a small bit of time.
The court martial was conducted in a blazing glare of publicity.  

In point of fact the DI got off easy because of the publicity -- the Corps
was more or less obliged to defend their own and their ways against adverse
criticism.  Standard practice would have been a dishonorable and twenty years
brig time.  Mind you, this was in the old corps.  In those days DI's were
supposed to abuse the troops.  When you got posted as a DI, they gave you
a promotion first to make up for the bust you were going to get later for
abusing recruits.  Nowadays I understand it is a kinder, gentler, Marine
Corps.

In any case, the incident was really an accident caused by negligence.
-- 
Richard Harter: SMDS Inc.  Net address: rh@smds.com Phone: 508-369-7398 
US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742.    Fax: 508-369-8272
In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Women and AIDS (Was, for some strange reason, Re: All feminists are lesbian man-haters)
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 16:55:08 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.021047.26587@leland.Stanford.EDU> repnomar@leland.Stanford.EDU (Janet M. Lafler) writes:

)I work in a support position at an outpatient AIDS Clinic in the county 
)hospital in Oakland, California.  We treat people with AIDS and people who
)have been infected with HIV but have not yet developed full-blown AIDS.
)About 20% of our patients are women.  According to the county health de-
)partment, this is a pretty accurate reflection of the proportion of women 
)infected with HIV in Alameda County.
)
)I also have some data here from the CDC HIV/AIDS monthly report for April,
)1992.  According to this report, slightly over 10% of the adult/adolescent
)cases of AIDS reported in the U.S. to date have been in women.  However, 
)during March, 1991 - April, 1992 about 12.6% of the AIDS cases reported
)were in women.  This is about 1 in 8 cases.  Remember, though, this is 
)the number of AIDS cases reported to the CDC.  People whose cases are being 
)reported now were probably infected at least five years ago.  In addition,
)as I noted in an earlier post, the CDC definition of AIDS doesn't recognize
)that the disease manifests differently in women than in men, so that women
)are less likely to be officially diagnosed with AIDS even if they are HIV 
)positive and dying.
)
)According to the CDC, the women whose AIDS cases have been reported to date
)were most likely to have been infected through injection drug use (50%) or 
)sexual contact with an injection drug user (over 20%).  Transmission through
)sexual contact with a bisexual male was only the case in fewer than 5%.

That's about what I thought, though I'm a little surprised at the large
difference between the approximately 8:1 or 10:1 M/F ratio for aids, vs
5:1 ratio for HIV positiveness.  On the plus side, given the apparent
problems with the CDC definition, HIV positiveness may be more what
is desired to measured than AIDS.  On the minus side, the data here for HIV+
seems to be less precise and more geographically limited (patients at one
hospital, estimates in one county).

(I forgot to mention this was US only - it probably is important to note that
worldwide men and women are victims in fairly equal numbers.)

)in services to poor and indigent people with HIV in the East Bay.  If
)AIDS is still predominantly a male disease, then why aren't there more
)men involved in taking care of people with AIDS?

Probably because most nurses are female - regardless of any particular
specialization.  Are more cardiac intensive care nurses male or female,
for instance?  [Actually, I gather total deaths are close for heart problems,
even though at any given age men are at about 3x the risk of women at the
same age.]
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: goldstn@arrisun3.uta.edu (David Goldstein)
Subject: Advice on independent women (no flames please)
Organization: Automation and Robotics Research Institute, U Texas @ Arlington
MessageID: <GOLDSTN.92Jul26191607@arrisun3.uta.edu>
NntpPostingHost: arrisun3.uta.edu
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 01:16:07 GMT
Distribution: soc
X-Bytes: 1248

Advice needed:

I recently have been "doing things with" some very independent women.  Meaning,
most women I have met sortof live by the "take me out a lot of times,
we  have a relationship" motto (which leads to sex).  However, these women
are  well, last night one was having coffee with me after Romeo & Juliet
and told me that I am the only person her age she like (she has a 20+ year
older boyfriend) and that she has dated over a dozen multimillionaires.  Now,
this woman DOES actually have her act together  a delegate to the republican
national convention, on the board of dozens of societies, etc.

Question: how does one approach an amazingly selfsufficient & independent
woman to become a girlfriend and also sleep with them?

Due to my acquiring better taste, I have had a monklike existance over the
last year while getting my PhD.  Dependent, uneducated, unsuccessful women
are no big deal, but ultraindependent and confident women I avoid
"mashing".....should I expect  when they want to that they will rip my
clothes off with their teeth?

I realize that even their going out is a big sacrifice, timewise; rather
that they spend very little energy elsewhere and have a lot of committments...


thoughts?

David 

(no flames please)
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Separate but equal is
X-To: SUSAN LARSEN
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 02:52:00 GMT

slarsen@tagore.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes...
SL> But, I did not sense that the man who jumped my post was in any sort
SL> of pain, at least none that he has chosen to advertise.  Frankly,
SL> his response to my posting struck me as being in the vein of "What the
SL> hell have you got to complain about, at least you don't have to
SL> put up with what I have to put up with:  Feminists."

You have definitely misunderstood me, Susan.

I was only trying to say that I *THOUGHT* that you were saying that "girls
have a difficult time in high school because of male sexism," which I was
chafing against.

Seeing your angry response, I realised that you were not saying that at all,
and realised my error.  I am sorry for making that mistake.


SL> to even the most inocuous of posts?  Frankly, I view this as
SL> a blow-off response; an attempt to discredit the initial experience
SL> and replace it with the responder's experience.  Lazy at best, if one

Well, I hope that you realise that I wasn't attempting to censor you.  I was
just hoping to *add* to what you said about how "high school is hell for
girls".  I was not trying to deny this ; I was just trying to say that this
isn't just the case for girls.  Another user DID make this statement, but
did it less angrily than I did.

As for it being lazy, you're probably right, but I wasn't trying to say that
your point of view was not valid.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                  "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Repeat after me:  "We are all individuals"
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Re: All feminists are lesbian man-haters
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 23:40:20 GMT

In article <32620062@hpmwga.sr.hp.com> deannab@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Deanna Bergstrom) writes:

)Also, the rate of increase in infection in the US is increasing much faster
)in women than in men, in the last couple of years.
)
)So yes, women have an interest in AIDS, above and beyond the interest
)that men might have.
)
)And by the way...AIDS didn't START as a gay men's disease.  It is
)believed to have begun in heterosexuals in Africa, and to have initially
)spread in the US among gay men. 

This is only rememberd-from-the-newspaper-quality information, but the high
rate of increase in infection of women, though true, only meant that they
were on their way to catching up with men.

Men were still at something like 10X the risk of infection of women.   It
will take quite a while for women to catch up.  It was like 100,000 male
victims in one year increased to 110,000, the next year, while in the same
two years 10,000 women victims increased to 15,000 - the rate of increase for
men was 10%, and for women it was 15%. [These weren't the actual figures, but
there was about a 10X difference between men and women.]

If anyone has the actual figues with appropriate sources I'd be
interested in the data, but I want to point out that looking only at 'rate of
increase' could easily be *very* misleading, and my impression from said
newspaper article was that this was *exactly* the situation with AIDS.

Newsgroups: soc.women
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Right to not support
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 19:47:28 GMT

In article <nancyo.712390711@sfu.ca> nancyo@fraser.sfu.ca (Nancy Patricia O'Connor) writes:

)I was not making any value judgments; I used the phrase
)"best interest" in terms of reproductive fitness, or,
)the success one has in producing offspring which survives
)to reproduce.

)I think it would be in a father's best interest in that regard
)to ensure the survival of the child, rather than rely on a
)society which, also in that regard, should not have any concern
)for the child (since he or she is not related to the majority
)of of its members).

I don't think 'father's best interest' is a good term to use if you are
going to advance a purely sociobiological type argument.  Maybe 'the fathers
genes best interests'?

Anyway, both the 'nurture the offspring' strategey and the 'spread the genes
around and hope some survive' strategy work in nature, and it's not
particularly clear which is sociobiologically 'better' for the fathers genes.
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: RU-486 volunteer
Date: 27 Jul 92 04:38:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1992Jul27.043805.215302
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <62842@cup.portal.com> Arthur_T_Hu@cup.portal.com writes:
[text deleted]

#It was never an issue in my family because none of us go pregnant
#or got anybody else pregnant, and it is unbelievably easy to make it happen
#this way (basically we didn't sleep around!)

This was just too funny.  (Was Hu spontaneously generated?)

I do commend your decision not to reproduce, Hu.  The world
certainly needs no more like you.

Susan
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: kbiesel@unislc.uucp (Karen Biesel)
Subject: Re: topfree, answer this?
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
Distribution: soc
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 19:54:25 GMT

davecb@nexus.yorku.ca (David Collier-Brown) writes:

>spzkny@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES ZAKANY) writes:
>|I think that it's a bit silly.  In OUR SOCIETY, female breasts are 
>|considered sexually enticing and are not publicly displayed.  The argument 
>|that "you men can disply YOUR chests, so we can too" rings hollow and petty
>|  The male chest is physically and functionally different than the female 
>|chest.  More importantly, though, is that it is PERCEIVED as different.

I take my shirt off when I feel like it, just like a man would.  I don't
feel naked, and I'll never be convinced I should.

Perhaps this person should change his PERCEPTION.  I beleive in a 
"do as I say, and as I do" philosophy.  And don't think that <some> male chests
aren't sexually exciting to look at.  
Maybe we should make a law that says only "good looking people" can go
top-free.  Cover up those beer guts and butt cracks.

Hubba Hubba,

Karen Biesel

Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,soc.couples
From: boggs@a.cs.okstate.edu (BOGGS RICHARD GRAN)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: RU-486 volunteer
Date: 26 Jul 92 23:05:28 GMT
Organization: Oklahoma State University, Computer Science, Stillwater

In article <62842@cup.portal.com> Arthur_T_Hu@cup.portal.com writes:
>Believe it or not, there are patterns of behavior that make this a moot
>question. It was never an issue in my family because none of us go pregnant
>or got anybody else pregnant, and it is unbelievably easy to make it happen
>this way (basically we didn't sleep around!)

Amazing how many problems that [not sleeping around] solves, isn't it?

-- 
Grant Boggs
boggs@a.cs.okstate.edu
Oklahoma State University
Stillwater, Oklahoma
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Subject: Re: women's place in life
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 21:09:23 GMT

s_mesbah@engr writes:

>Hi y'al

>	I am new to this group and I'd just thought I'd share my views with
>you.  I think that all you women should get away from the computer and start
>doing what you were created to do (kitchen, kids, and domesticated love slave).
>Remember, you were made from our rib!

I wish him all the luck in the world in finding such a woman.  After all,
they would deserve one another.

						--  Michal
Newsgroups: soc.women,talk.abortion,sci.med
From: clare@nynexst.com (Clare Chu)
Subject: Re: Right to not support
Organization: Nynex Science and Technology
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 19:29:56 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.185045.15436@spool.cs.wisc.edu> rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu writes:
>In <nancyo.712390711@sfu.ca> nancyo@fraser.sfu.ca (Nancy Patricia O'Connor) writes:
>>gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:
>>>In article <nancyo.712373787@sfu.ca> nancyo@fraser.sfu.ca 
>>>(Nancy Patricia O'Connor) writes:
>>>>We live in a society where DNA testing should eliminate this
>>>>uncertain paternity, and it would thus be (if he is able)
>>>>in the father's best interest to support his child.
>
>>>Thank you so much for deciding for other people what are their
>>>best interests; I don't know what all those stupid men would 
>>>do without the help of women like you...
>
>>I was not making any value judgments; I used the phrase
>>"best interest" in terms of reproductive fitness, or,
>>the success one has in producing offspring which survives
>>to reproduce.
>
>>I think it would be in a father's best interest in that regard
>>to ensure the survival of the child, rather than rely on a
>>society which, also in that regard, should not have any concern
>>for the child (since he or she is not related to the majority
>>of of its members).
>
>What if the father is not interested in producing offspring which survive to
>reproduce (or in producing offspring at all)?
>
>-- 
>Michael Rawdon

  Then get a vasectomy, simple.
From: stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: A question about NOW
Date: 29 Jul 92 01:09:23 GMT
Distribution: na

In article <l79c9dINNoh1@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> falk@peregrine.Sun.COM (Ed Falk)  
writes:
+ In article <9965@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)  
writes:
+ >In article <l721kaINN6es@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> falk@peregrine.Sun.COM (Ed  
Falk)  
+ >writes:
+ >+ 
+ >+ Because they don't have any money?
+ >
+ >Well, I haven't heard that they do/don't, but such an explaination
+ >is species when they can and do throw money into politics.
+ 
+ I knew the New York State lobbiest for N.O.W. about 12 years ago.
+ She was paid a wopping $6000/year for her lobbying activities.  (She
+ found temp work while the legislature was on vacation to survive.)
+ If this is your idea of "throwing money into politics", I'd hate to
+ see your idea of poverty.

But they aren't *investing* in potential *future* members. Well educated,
intelligent, and most importantly, *indebted* to NOW, women. Besides, that
was 12 years ago. What's the going rate these days?

+ Where do you think they get all the money you think they have?  Do
+ you think they get fat grants from Exxon or something?

No. How much do *you* donate??? How about the rest of their membership?
Even a couple of dollars a piece a *year* to be set aside to fund grants
wouldn't be *that* big a hardship, would it? 

Which is more important: making a temporary political gain or making a
better future for the people that will become NOW's lifeblood within the
next 20 years? 

K'Char
From: kiernan@hubble.ifa.hawaii.edu (Elaine Kiernan)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Sick leave for period
Date: 24 Jul 92 00:00:57 GMT
Organization: Institute for Astronomy, Hawaii

>>Sheila Ralston ral3@midway.uchicago.edu writes
>>
>>> I'd like to solicit opinions on whether taking time off for
>>> menstrual pain is an abuse of sick leave policy.  Neither my union
>>> manual nor my copy of the company policy address this problem.
>>

	It is a perfectly valid reason to stay home!! 
	If you are having severe cramps, I would check with a doctor.
In my case I had to go to 3 doctors before I found out that I
had endometriosis, which was causing my problems. The first two
(one of which was a woman) did not seem to take the cramps very seriously,
So instead of treating my condition, I overmedicated myself, and
missed a night's sleep and usually a day of work every month.
If you have disabling cramps you could have a treatable condition.
I think too many women suffer unecessarily and too many doctors
let them!

	Elaine
	kiernan@koa.ifa.hawaii.edu