HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kls4344@ritvax.isc.rit.edu (Person in flux)
Subject: Re: Hating Men with Full Force
Reply-To: kls4344@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 21:23:34 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.104209.1@mdcbbs.com>, rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:

>  While it may be true that men still earn more money (after all, they work
>more hours), in joint households, the woman traditionally controls the
>discretionary spending, a fact not lost on the advertisers.
>[deleted]
>  So, while it's partly correct to place blame for the male bash on
>extremists such as Andrea Dworkin, a major portion of the cause for
>"mainstream" male bashing lies with the advertisers, and WON'T go away until
>the networks start to see men controlling the discretionary spending. Then
>those same TV programs will turn the "bash" in the opposite direction.

My take on advertisers viewing women as controlling discretionary spending
relates directly to the *fact* that working women work the equivalent of a full
extra month each year in the household (reference lost; will try to find) doing
cleaning, laundry, cooking, grocery shopping, whatnot and therefore needing to
purchase the materials with which to do this extra labor.  They also may be
watching Oprah and Geraldo, but they most definitely are doing the household
chores.  Sure, there are thousands of men out there pulling their weight with
household chores, but they are not the rule.  If you are trying to imply that
this discretionary spending control is being abused by women during the course
of fulfilling their "wifely" duties with minimal support (other than financial)
from their husbands, how can you blame these women?  Wouldn't you feel gypped
if you were the one who had to do all the work around the house?

I'm not endorsing this sort of financial retaliation; I find it reprehensible,
and I also dislike advertisements that play up on this (or any other sort of
manipulation).  I do think, however, that you can see the inequities in this
situation:  men feel ripped off in their wallets, women feel ripped off in
other areas in their lives, no one is happy.  

Katie
Xref: sparky soc.women:16161 soc.men:15958
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: Another right to not
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com
Date: 4 Sep 92 09:59:07 GMT
Organization: Electronic Data Systems, Unigraphics Division, Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: mcniel

In article <1992Sep3.025315.4080@zooid.guild.org>, Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
> kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall) writes...
> JK>  will nor force a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.  A man can
> JK>  not be deprived of his children until they are born.            ^^^^^^^^^
>      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> I really wish that this were true, Janice.  And don't try to tell this to
> a couple who has had a miscarriage, because they too, like me, feel every
> bit like they lost a *child*, not "a lump of cells".
> 
> You can't use semantics like "a foetus isn't a child until it's born" on
> people who have experienced miscarriages or upon scorned fathers.  It just
> will *not* wash.

  I agree. My ex also tried to rationalize dropping our child down the
garbage disposal by stating,"It's NOT a human being", which of course, is the
rationale Hitler used to shovel the Jews, Gypsies, and Gays into the ovens.

  I have seen the lab tests which show just how human a foetus really is. 
Certainly it can feel and respond to pain. Women who undergo a saline 
abortion can feel the foetus struggling and convulsing as it dies.
Having actually bothered to check the scientific evidence myself, I am
forced to remind my ex that she is NOT God, NOT a doctor (hell she didn't
even finish high school) and that therefore her point of view is merely
an opinion, and an uneducated one at that.

  What bothers me about this debate is that, in California, a woman can
divorce a man on the grounds of not being able to father a child. In
my divorce, my ex-wife's abortion was not considered relevent.


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com  Middle-Aged Mutant Ninja Animator   |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|              I LOVE women!  It's the bitches I cannot stand!           |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
From: sam@hpsad.sad.hp.com (Vicky Hansen)
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 16:03:14 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: Feminists ignore Cosmetics?....Why don't you guys get a JOB?
Organization: HP Signal Analysis Division - Rohnert Park, CA
Newsgroups: soc.women

In soc.women, n8946410@fozzie.cc.wwu.edu (Cameron Parish) writes:
>>Keep in mind that while anorexia is common
>>in our society obesity is much more prevalent, not to mention poor
>>nutrition overall.  

>	I'm not entirely convinced that this is true for females in my
>age/class group (which is young college age, I suppose.)  Most of the women 
>I've talked to about this are, or have been, at least slightly anorexic.  
>I think eating disorders are dreadfully underreported, possibly because
>they are the norm.  I also think that many people with eating disorders
>don't really think much about it:  me, for instance.  I lost ten percent
>of my body weight in two months last year, and didn't really clue into 
>the fact that something was *wrong*.  (I know, this doesn't count as 
>Real Anorexia:  I think the classical anorexic is obsessed with his/her
>weight, not just one who stops eating.)

>>For a person in their teens and twenties it can be a social stigma to be
>>overweight. 

>	To put a slightly different spin on the matter:  not only is it
>undesirable to be overweight, it is *desirable* to be underweight -- though
>not to the point of looking like you're on the brink of death.  I think
>this might be especially true at my age, 20, when we women are supposed to
>be desirable young nubile things.  (At least, I *hope* this nonsense dies down
>when I start reaching for middle age.)  

I hate to disappoint you but at 42, I am still 'supposed' to weigh 120lbs
and almost every woman I know is still striving for that if she is single.
The long term marrieds allow a *little* more weight (on average), often
because a woman who is starving is not as much fun to be around -- not
because 'overweight' is OK.  Many anorexics and bulimics are well over 30
and may not have even had a problem at 20 but developed a stomach after 
having a few children.  In order to 'get' or 'keep' a man, we have to
'compete' with women your age so the weight bit is still there.

Hopefully, by the time you are 40, styles will change again (maybe with
Dolly's help) and the Marilynn Monroe body will return to its position as
'ideal'.
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------
 | Vicky Hansen                      | e-mail: sam@hpsad.HP.COM         |
 | Firmware - 859x Product line      | Telnet: 794-4442                 |
 | HP Microwave Instrument Division  | AT&T: (707) 794-4442             |
 | 1212 Valley House Dr.             | HPDesk: Vicky HANSEN/HP5300/UM   |
 | Rohnert Park, CA 94928-4999       | HP Mailstop: 2LR-R               |
 |----------------------------------------------------------------------|
 |        Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty         |
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Feminists ignore Cosmetics?....Why don't you guys get a JOB?
Date: 31 Aug 92 20:08:22 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <73740001@hpsad.sad.hp.com>, sam@hpsad.sad.hp.com (Vicky Hansen) writes:
>  I am not nearly as concerned with western women's use of cosmetics as I
>  am with their 'need' to be scrawny.  At 5'5" our society claims I should
>  weigh in the neighborhood of 120lb.  Yet to maintain 20% body fat (that
>  is the level recommended by the medical people), I need to weigh 150lb.
>  That 30 lb discrepancy oppresses more women than makeup does.  If I were
>  to weigh in at 120, my health, intelligence, personality, etc. would all
>  suffer -- all in the name of "looks".
> 
>  Men are allowed to carry a lot more excess weight before being considered
>  unattractive.

They are?  I'm afraid I don't agree.  In my experience, our society
is obsessed with an very skinny appearance for BOTH sexes.

Now, it's true that there are people who just lack self-control,
and eat with abandon, never get any exercise, etc.  But in my
experience, the influence of TV and movies has caused too narrow
a range of "proper" weights to be recognized by the society as a
whole.

-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
prohibition won't work.
From: sam@hpsad.sad.hp.com (Vicky Hansen)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 21:14:52 GMT
Subject: Re: The Majority are "In Contempt"
Organization: HP Signal Analysis Division - Rohnert Park, CA
Newsgroups: soc.women

In soc.women, hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress) writes:
>When society $$ gang rapes men, the majority (57%) "protect" themselves
>by being outlaws -- in contempt.
First, although it is usually the man who pays support, that is not always
the case.  Whoever earns more money pays the support (or is ordered to) in
the case of joint custody.  Whoever is not the primary care giver pays if
the child lives with one parent.

Second, the support should not exceed the cost of raising the child.  The
payee has the right to require proof of the expenses.

Third, as someone from the other side of the fence, I hardly feel that the
support orders are out of line.  Before I was asked to stay home and raise
our children, I was earning more money than my ex-husband (though not by
much).  After 10 years vegetating (15 years of marriage), I became single
at his request and got a job at just over 1/3 of his salary.  I have since
moved up to almost 1/2 of his salary.  The fact that he turns over 7% of
his salary to help me support our 12 year old (on time and in full) does
not seem exhorbitant to me.  Also, with the time=money equation, you need
to understand that I am spending the time and he is spending the money.  I
helped him move up the corporate ladder by running his household and taking
care of the children while he travelled -- noone does that for me and I 
started 10 years later -- I will never again earn anywhere near what he
does.  Once my son is 18, no money will be exchanged -- I disagree with
who society is against.
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism
From: asparrow@mcs213f.cs.umr.edu (Angelia Sparrow)
Subject: Re: Feminists ignore Cosmetics?
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 20:47:54 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla

I have not read Wolfe, and I'm not
a feminist. But, the topic intrigues me.

I stood my ground when my mother insisted
on make-up saying I looked pale and plain.  
I already have a man, I don't need to entice more.
I informed her I would rather look pale and plain
than like a painted whore as my sister sometimes
does.  Mom took it poorly.

A psych prof I had once ran some experiments.
She was seeing whether men put as much emphasis on
makeup as women.  She took pictures of women made
up and then had them wash their faces before another 
picture was taken.  A number of the women refused to
be photographed without their make-up.  Of the ones
who did, quite a number said she was the first to see
them without makeup since they had started wearing it.

However, when pictures were shown to a group of
men, most could not tell the difference between clean
and madeup.

Women wear makeup as a bow to social pressure
from other women, it seems.  

Angel, who always wanted to run an experiment
with veils and see how many wore makeup even
under an opaque veil.
From: slarsen@mozart.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Hating Men with Full Force
Date: 25 Aug 92 20:30:23 GMT
Organization: University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame

In article <1992Aug24.225136.8890@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
>
>Also, there is absolutely *nothing* like the organized politcial and directed
>male bashing that we see in politics today from the homosexual male front
>(or the non-homosexual male front, for that matter).  There aren't any male
>McKinnon's or Dworkins (IMO).

I wouldn't be too sure about that!  On the purely censorious front, we have 
Donald Wildmon, Jerry Falwell, and a host of other religious-types more 
than willing to do whatever it takes to not only censor, but punish folks
involved in pornography.

As for gender-bashing, I would equate the legal attempts of a McKinnon or 
Dworkin with that of a Bush or Quayle, those two great Republican leaders
who would do all they could to force women back to hearth and home. In fact, 
Mckinnon and Dworkin are less scary gender-bashers because they don't have 
a say on who the next Supreme Court appointee will be.

As a single working mother, I feel personally affronted at the characterizations 
of single motherhood that the Republican clowns have gotten away with, on 
prime-time TV, no less.  No, check that, affronted is not quite accurate, 
I feel threatened by those folks!

It is all part and parcel of the same package:  divisive politics.  Create
an enemy and stone the daylights out of it.  Despicable practice, whether 
practiced by a McKinnon or a Bush.

Sue Larsen
slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu
From: bf455@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Bonita Kale)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: FEMALE GYMNASTS
Date: 3 Sep 92 10:25:41 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu




In a previous article, stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul) says:
>
>In the coal mines, esp. 100+ years ago:
>
>Death by:
>
>work related lung disease [which killed my great grandfather]
>explosion 
>mine collapse
>rock falls
>falling
>equipment failure
>
>Please fill in the gymnasts list. And unless I'm mistaken, only boys
>and men worked the mines.
>
>K'Char
>

No, women and girls did, too.  One of the things that horrified the
Victorians was the "immodesty" of the whole business.

Bonita Kale
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,soc.men
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Father Notification Reconsidered
X-To: JANICE KENDALL
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 02:31:00 GMT

kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall) writes...
JK>  I don't think the man has a right to know if the woman feels the best
JK>  action for her situation is to abort.


Well, as my good friend, Locutus of Borg :-), might say : "Feelings are
Irrelevant".  Indeed, if someone were to say "The man has the right to have
his child," you might say "Irrelevant!  It involves her body".  And in this
case, I, err Locutus :-) would that the woman does *not* have the right to
"decide" to deny the father the right to know the full truth of what he is
about to face.

However, I agree with Don Beaver that such notification *should* be after the
fact, although I believe this VERY grudgingly, because it is bad enough that
the man feels totally powerless in a situation where he is expected to be
responsible, but to tell him *afterwards* seems only like throwing salt in
the wounds.  Even so, I grant the possibility of abuse in cases where the
notification is before the fact.

BUT, I do not believe that this rare possibility totally abrogates his right
to *know*.  Thus, I would say that notification should be VERY soon afterwards,
although I think that the woman should at least have the decency, respect, and
trust to tell him beforehand!  (Note my words carefully : I am stating that I
believe that it is advisable to tell beforehand, but that I would *require*
it to be told afterwards).

And with God or Allah (whomever) as my witness, I will say that in my own
situation, if the woman had *not* been so respecting as to tell me before,
but in fact had not only told me right afterwards, but had waited a year (!)
or more, I probably would have snapped right there and killed her where she
stood.

You can call it "male violence against women," but how would *you* feel if
someone deliberately kept something from *you* for such a long time?  (like,
for instance, husband had an affair, etc?).  You *might* even be angry enough
to be driven to violence as well, especially if the delay had been long, so
before condemning me for making such a strong and unambiguous statement, please
consider the context within which I made it.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * The Borg Hard Drive - Your files will be assimilated.
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician)
Subject: Re: FEMALE GYMNASTS
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 11:14:51 GMT
Organization: Society for the Preservation of E. coli

In article <SHAFER.92Aug27113748@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov> shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes:
>Is it possible that the difference between male and female gymnasts
>is that the males are doing things that require more strength so 
>that they are post-pubescent?  It seems to me that the female events
>are less strength oriented than the male events.

>Examples of this are the differences between vaulting and the side
>horse, or the balance beam and the rings.

No, I wouldn't say that.  The problem with this is that the set of
apparatus for the females isn't one-for-one with the set for males,
the only common elements being the floor and the vault (but, for some
unknown reason, they re-orient it.)

Personally, I would equate the balance been to be a bit of a cross
among the rings, the parallel bars, and the pommel horse as far as
strength needs goes while the uneven bars would be akin to the high
bar.

Besides...haven't you seen the size of Kim Zmeskel's legs?  *I* wish I
had legs like that!

>If this is the case, then the males would naturally start training
>later and they would have different kinds of injuries.

Well, I would probably agree that there is a good shot of a different
set of injuries due to the separate apparatus and the difference in
age.

However, another aspect of the differences in age is that the men,
competing in the middle-to-end of puberty, have the benefit of the
testosterone while the women, competing in the beginning-to-middle of
puberty, might not have the hormonal "kick."  But even so, age does
have a bit to do with it.  17-year-old body builders look nothing like
the 25-year-olds.

My feeling is that while being female may have something to do with
it, I don't think it is the main concern.  I see just as many male
gymnasts with taped ankles, wrists, knees, etc. as I do female
gymnasts.  However, since I'm not that up on the physics of
gymnastics, the fact that a female's center of gravity is different
than a male's might have something to do with how a body takes a
double-twisting-double-back dismount, f'rinstance.

-- 
Brian Evans                |     "Bad mood, bad mood...Sure I'm in a bad mood!
bevans@carina.unm.edu      |      I haven't had sex...*EVER!*" -- Virgin Mary
From: robert@informix.com (Robert Coleman)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Hating Men with Full Force
Date: 29 Aug 92 00:17:22 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

bev@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu (Beverly Huntsberger) writes:

>	Most days I'm content to continue on in a very pro-peace
>	direction. And then, one day, along comes some piss-ant
>	who dumps on me because I'm a woman and he's not. At
>	which point, it really clears my head and calms me down
>	to get a chance to read an article like the "Hating Men
>	with Full Force".
>	
>	Helps me see myself in a new light. I can empower
>	myself with the knowledge that I absolutely have the 
>	choice to hate men for what they do to me. And then, I
>	can back to working for peace with renewed energy and
>	confidence, keeping the power, and allowing the hatred
>	to fade.

	Do you think it would be useful and appropriate for me to hear similar
diatribes about, say, women, or more specifically, feminists?  If it's good
for you, would something like that be good for me, whenever I have to read
material like the article in question (that gets me as angry as the 
"piss-ant" would do you)?

	Or shouldn't we recognize and censure blind bigoted hatred whenever
we see it?  If you and I both act as you do, then those kind of statements
will keep being made forever and ever...you're taking your personal empowerment
at the expense of the peace you are pursuing.

Robert C.
-- 
----------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: My company has not yet seen fit to
	    elect me as spokesperson. Hmmpf.
From: bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Chiro-quackery (was: Backrubs and Body Massages)
Date: 30 Aug 92 20:01:19 GMT
Reply-To: bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright)
Organization: Zortech, Seattle

I have a friend who broke her back waterskiing. She did not realize it was
broken, she thought she merely pulled a muscle. She went to a chiropractor
who told her that her back needed "adjustment" and proceeded to painfully
bend things around a lot. This obviously didn't fix anything, so the
chiropractor recommended numerous more visits.

Suspicious, she went to a sports doctor who immediately ordered xrays, which
revealed the broken vertebra. She is now stuck in a back brace for the next
few months.

The moral is, if you have major back pain, and it is very sensitive to the
touch, go see a real doctor.
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Taking the Solo Road
X-To: HEINER BIESEL
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 02:53:00 GMT

biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel) writes...
HB> Will writes...
HB> >Those Damn Humourless Activists...  :-)

HB> Is that another veiled swipe at feminists, buddy? I'll just have to
HB> ask you to step outside.

Oh GOiD!  I was poking fun at *myself* for being so humourless as to take
you to task, even though I knew damn well that you were being sarcastic.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * It's only a hobby ... only a hobby ... only a
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Hating Men with Full
X-To: 6069870@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOC
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 03:07:00 GMT

6069870@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes...
60> 2.  women kept on & on about the right to vote!
60>     they have yet... to vote themselves in a woman president.
60>     (*note*  women out number men in population, 5 to 1)


Oh please... the female component of the population is 52%, I believe.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Obi Wan Kenobi at the dinner table: Use the FORKS, Luke!
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism