HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Hating Men with Full Force
Date: 19 Aug 92 17:37:11 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Aug19.162420.4446@tc.cornell.edu>, shore@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Melinda Shore) writes:
> In article <92232.29425.6069870@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM> 6069870@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
> >this sounds like a dame who never gets any.
> 
> Funny, that sounds exactly like the kind of thing a guy who
> never gets any would say.  What, precisely, were you intending
> to contribute to the conversation with that remark?
> 
> I am not surprised that there are women who hate men.  What
> surprises me is *which* women hate men.  No, it isn't the
> radical feminists or the lesbian separatists who make sweeping
> and general anti-male statements, it's the heterosexual housewives
> and the rather ordinary, run-of-the mill women who engage in
> outrageous male-bashing.  And it's the men who behave in the
> most disgustingly sexist manner who are confused and angered by
> it.  Ironic, huh?

Sorry, Melinda.  You had me along for the ride until your last sentence.
I don't think I behave in the most disgustingly sexist manner, and I'm
sure as hell confused and angered when I see or hear outrageous male
bashing.

> -- 
>        Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu

-- 

Dan S.
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: kls4344@ritvax.isc.rit.edu (Person in flux)
Subject: Re: 27 reasons why women like men
Reply-To: kls4344@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 14:43:39 GMT

In article <2255@devnull.mpd.tandem.com>, dwelch@mpd.tandem.com (Dan Welch) 
writes:

>The following editorial appeared in Glamour magazine recently.  I am
>interested in finding out people's reactions to it -- whether they think
>it's true, etc.
>
>
>	27 Reasons We Like Men Just the Way They Are
>	[ reprinted w/o permission; no author given ]
	[ deleted to conserve bandwidth ]

Heartwarming and cute; doesn't matter to me whether all are true as much as
that the attitude is generally accepting.

Katie
Xref: sparky soc.women:15190 soc.men:14916 sci.bio:2920 sci.skeptic:14233
From: revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,sci.bio,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Biological Sex Differences?
Date: 13 Aug 92 03:28:20 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system

lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
> 	But you were the one who quoted Philip Wylie on how the US in
> 1940 was a matriarchy, and you were the one who claimed that it is now
> an even bigger matriarchy. So we have a counterexample here :-)
> 
> 	I'm still waiting for a chance to get a hold of the 1950's
> edition of _Generation of Vipers_, but I would be _very_ surprised if
> Philip Wylie had done a 180-degree turnaround in his assessment of
> American womanhood -- that women had stopped being aggressive and
> domineering and had started becoming happily submissive housewives.
> 
> 	Well, I hope you read all those papers I sent you. I think
> that they contain some significant counterevidence to Goldberg's claim
> that women are naturally submissive to men.

        It doesn't add much to this, but believe it or not, I own a first 
edition of the early 1940's "generation of Vipers," printed in accord with 
war rationing and all. (I picked it up because I'd read Wylie's essay on 
'Mom,' thought it was hilarious, and figured the book would be just as good. 
Talk about disappointment.)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian "Rev. P-K" Siano                                  revpk@cellar.org
"What? They have BIGGER DICKS?! _BOMB THEM!!!!_"
                        Our Leaders, paraphrased by George Carlin
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: johnston@fys.ruu.nl (Helen Johnston)
Subject: Re: Right to not support
Organization: Physics Department, University of Utrecht,  The Netherlands
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 15:35:40 GMT

In article <1992Aug23.063108.12366@ddsw1.mcs.com> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>In article <2304@unet.UUCP> linda@wendy.net.com (Linda Hill) writes:
>>
>>So are these, to us, archaic child support laws based on pre-legalized abortion
>>days?  If so, I would want to make absolutely sure that legalized abortion is
>>here to stay before legislating the child support laws out of existence.
>
>No, these laws are a PRODUCT of the feminist movement.  Common law long held
>that a "bastard" child (one born out of wedlock) was owed support by nobody!
>It is only relatively recently that child-support "guidelines" and legal
>force has been used to compel couples who split up to end up as
>"kids-go-with-mom-and-dad-pays-the-bills".  Many of these laws were lobbied
>for by the very same feminist groups who want the right to choose.
>
I just wanted to comment on this one paragraph. In fact, paternal
support of children born out of wedlock has a very long history. Quoting
from J.R. Gillis, ``For better, For worse: British marriages, 1600 to
the present'':

``... Often men entered into agreements to maintain their children in
the manner that Evan Jones did in 1778. He agreed to pay Elizabeth
Williams of Ceiriog four shillings each week until she was delivered and
then five shillings a month thereafter. If the child lived, then he
would pay three pounds and ten shillings each subsequent year...
Cardiganshire officials operated in a similar manner, the men paying the
women through them.'' [p. 128]

``Much later another Welshman remembered the customary way of dealing
with a man who did not own up to his duties:
	A few neighbours came together, took the child from the young
	girl and took it down to the reputed father to bring up ---
	and to show they meant business they had brought their guns
	with them. If he did not want to bring up the child himself
	--- and that was usually the case --- the girl could make a
	better bargain for taking it back than she could otherwise
	have done.'' [p. 131]

It was not until 1834 with the passage of the New Poor Law that
``...Unwed mothers were stripped of their right to outrelief, even that
provided by the putative father under an affiliation order from the
magistrates... In order to obtain ordinary assistance, she now had no
choice but the workhouse, a provision which was introduced with
deterrence in mind... [I]n the north, there was a sense that things had
been better in `grandfather's days':
	If a young man went a-courting a damsel meek and mild
	And if she from misfortune should hap to have a child
	By going to a magistrate, a recompense to seek,
	They'd make the man marry her, or pay a crown a week.

	But now by the New Poor Law he nothing has to pay
	Nor would he, even if he got twenty children every day.''
[pp. 139-140]
-- 
Helen Johnston       | Astronomye is an harde thynge and yvel forto knowe.
johnston@fys.ruu.nl  |      -- William Langland, Piers the Plowman
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: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 18:39:54 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.171551.24770@hemlock.cray.com>, acp@cray.com 
(Anthony Peterson) writes:
>>Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu - writes:
                                                                        
>>I am not surprised that there are women who hate men.  What
>>surprises me is *which* women hate men.  No, it isn't the
>>radical feminists or the lesbian separatists who make sweeping
>>and general anti-male statements, it's the heterosexual housewives
>>and the rather ordinary, run-of-the mill women who engage in
>>outrageous male-bashing.  And it's the men who behave in the
>>most disgustingly sexist manner who are confused and angered by
>>it.  Ironic, huh?                                                     
>>                  
>	Anyone who can get their head that far up their ass
>	should be able to make a fortune in the circus.
>
>	What the hell are you wasting your time at Cornell for?

Why don't you tell us exactly what about Ms. Shore's *correct* observations
irked you so rather than fling this ad hominem comment at her?  If she's wrong,
tell us *HOW* and *WHY* instead of writing this uncalled-for garbage.

Katie
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: lioness method
Date: 13 Aug 92 22:06:36 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Aug12.121516.1906@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>, flaps@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal) writes:
> booth@mdd.comm.mot.com (Greg Booth) writes:
> >	If you believe that you cannot injure another human being,
> >this training is NOT for you. If you believe that is proper to
> >STOP a violent criminal to save yourself and others, it is.
> 
> Suppose you believe that it is proper to stop (or STOP) a violent criminal to
> save yourself and others, but you believe that you cannot injure another human
> being?  Then what?

Then you better be prepared to take the advice of the jerk that 
was running for Governor of Texas a while back about what to do
if raped, because there is NO reliable method of stopping a violent
criminal without injuring them.

Spindle, fold, but don't mutiliate your local rapist.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
I can make myself popular on USENET again -- all I have to say is that I'm not 
disturbed by the support for North American Man-Boy Love Association in the 
homosexual community.  Being popular at a child's expense isn't worth it.
Xref: sparky soc.women:15234 soc.men:14968 sci.bio:2926 sci.skeptic:14324
From: jdale@cats.ucsc.edu (Jonathan Dale)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,sci.bio,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Yet another _Ad Hominem_ post (was: Biological Sex Differences?)
Date: 14 Aug 1992 08:46:45 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu
From: 6069870@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Hating Men with Full Force
Date: 20 Aug 92 16:38:49 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.

i started this whole issue to get a rise out of the men haters
out there in the net.  didn't imagine you people could get angered
so easy.  it suffices to say that while i am not the most intellectual
person in the world, i have never lowered myself to calling people
dirty tactless names like "a**hole."  you haters of everything that
is put in front of you can keep on bickering amongst yourselves.
i'm outa here.
                       *6069870*

and remember.......  loose lips sink ships!
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.activism,alt.sex
From: simon@fsinfo.cs.uni-sb.de (Julia Simon)
Subject: Re: Feminism & Pornography
Organization: Fachschaft Computerlinguistik, U of Saarland, FRG
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 11:13:07 GMT

mari1@troy.uucp (21114-kapon) writes:
> 
> > [...]
> > So pornography, which means literally ``writing about prostitutes''...
> > [...]
> 
> 'pornography' means literally 'dirty writing' stemming from the
> ancient greek words 'pornos' and 'graphein'.

Isn't "porne" the ancient Greek word for a prostitute?

			Julia 8-)


 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
				Julia Simon

 Fachschaftsrat Computerlinguistik	DIaLOGIKa GmbH
 Fachbereich 8.7, Bau 17, Zi. 201
 Universita"t des Saarlandes		Albertstr., Pascalschacht
 D-W-6600 Saarbru"cken, Germany		D-W-6602 Dudweiler, Germany

			email: simon@fsinfo.cs.uni-sb.de
			       sileas@coli.uni-sb.de
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mikep@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Mike Powell)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Another right to not support?
Date: 13 Aug 92 03:14:57 GMT
Organization: HP Santa Rosa Site (NMD MTA MWTD)


	
	OK....

	How's this angle....

	A woman currently has the 'right' to put "her" child up for
	adoption at birth right?

	Should a man have the same right?  (ie: put "his" child up
	for adoption)

	-Mike-
From: cherokee@b11.b11.ingr.com (Lori Ludick)
Subject: Re: Equal Rights Amendment
Reply-To: cherokee@b11.b11.ingr.com (Lori Ludick)
Organization: Intergraph Corp. Huntsville, AL
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 00:36:51 GMT

In article <10275@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul) writes:
>Ted Frank writes
>+ In article <19064@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)  
>writes:
>+ >What happened
>+ >is that anti-feminist activists, led by Phyllis Schlafly, fought hard
>+ >to stop the ERA and succeeded.  For one thing, they showed what the
>+ >consequences would have been of carrying gender equality to its logical
>+ >conclusion in every area of life -- consequences which State legislators
>+ >were unwilling to accept.  
>+ 
>+ And what are those consequences, Matt?  Perhaps you can demonstrate by
>+ showing those consequences in effect in Pennsylvania, which does have
>+ an Equal Rights Amendment?
>
>Women would be required to serve in combat, in all it's variations. It 
>would not be an *option*. Women would be required to register for the 
>draft. Women would be required to pay the same automobile insurance as 
>the men of similar age.
>
>The first 2 are not subject to state constitutions. How about the later? 
>Did the insurance companies and women's rights groups get the insurance
>rate structure grandfathered in or otherwise protected???
>
>K'Char - a small, inexhaustive list of negative consequences


I do not see them as negative  consequences, but instead all a part of the give
and take required when someone wants equality.

I believe woman should be required to be registered to be drafted if men have 
that same requirement.

The auto insurance I thought was developed from statistics of number of 
accidents for a particular group, this might be discrimatory and if some
proof is offered to support that then maybe there should be a set price for
both men and women.

People that say that they believe in equality but then say women should not
be drafted or serve in combat can easily apply that same way of thinking and
say a womans place is in the kitchen bare foot and pregnent.

Xref: sparky soc.women:15159 talk.rape:2097
From: cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm)
Newsgroups: soc.women,talk.rape
Subject: Re: lioness method
Keywords: stop rapes
Date: 12 Aug 92 14:32:41 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <1992Aug10.220146.25569@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Aug10.201152.25834@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug10.165152.18662@news.columbia.edu> dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
>>>In article <1992Aug7.222313.19298@mdd.comm.mot.com> booth@mdd.comm.mot.com (Greg Booth) writes:

>>>>[about rape] When it ends, you will be dead; or alive, but physically
>>>>and emotionally shattered, probably permanently.

>I'm a rape victim who has fully recovered and lives a happy and normal
>life after the attack.  I'm not terrible traumatized by the experience,
>thought it was mean, evil, and ugly.  I resent it a great deal however
>when people tell me that I'm *supposed* to feel traumatized by the
>event, that I'm permanently scarred, that the experience will forever be
>with me....  Hogwash.  

People of both sexes who have suffered injuries in a severely
life-threatening situation, such as in a car crash, or even just
breaking an ankle when alone in the wilderness, are often severely
traumatised. Some never fully recover. Most, after months or even
years of nightmares and phobias, do finally completely recover. I am
not counting here as "scarring" the fact that these recovered
survivors often display special caution in circumstances similar to
those of the original accident, since this simply seems sensible.

I've never been raped, but after a serious accident it took me six
months, and a lot of determination and hard work, to recover from the
fear sweats, nightmares, and phobias which followed it.

I ask in a spirit of genuine enquiry whether the experience of rape is
more damaging than other kinds of seriously life-threatening injury.
I'd be particularly interested in answers from people who have
suffered both.
-- 
Chris Malcolm    cam@uk.ac.ed.aifh          +44 (0)31 650 3085
Department of Artificial Intelligence,    Edinburgh University
5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK                DoD #205
Newsgroups: soc.women,talk.rape
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Hating Men with Full Force
Date: 22 Aug 92 20:34:34 GMT
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA

In article <1992Aug20.104543.1@mdcbbs.com> rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:
>In article <1992Aug19.162420.4446@tc.cornell.edu>, shore@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Melinda Shore) writes:
>> I am not surprised that there are women who hate men.  What
>> surprises me is *which* women hate men.  No, it isn't the
>> radical feminists or the lesbian separatists who make sweeping
>> and general anti-male statements, it's the heterosexual housewives
>> and the rather ordinary, run-of-the mill women who engage in
>          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>  Without intending to, you have revealed one of the sadder aspects
>of the recent feminist movement; the assumption that housewives
>and mothers arr somehow socially inferior and are to be looked down on.
>Not a major attitude problem, but subtle and very pervasive; it has resulted
>in great confusion among those same women, who feel ashamed for wanting
>what they want at this time in history. Their frustration may be
>directed against a convenient male. But this particular attack on her self
>esteem is arriving from a slightly different quarter!

Shore didn't say what you've inferred.  In fact, I think your post
shows much more how you think, than what she's posted.

The point (imo) that she was making is that some anti-feminists seem
convinced that radical feminists and separatist lesbians engage in
male bashing, while ignoring the male bashing that goes on by the
ordinary, run-of-the-mill woman.

The worst male bashing I've ever heard was from working class, white,
hetero, Southern working women.  Judging from what they said, they
liked and trusted their husbands or boyfriends less than they did
their cats and dogs.  "Men are only concerned with their cocks and
their stomachs, give them sex and food and they're happy."  "Men
couldn't be trusted with housework, with the children, with the money,
with other women, with their male friends, etc."  The men were lousy
providers and lovers, and these women made jokes about running them
off.  These men and women seemed stuck with each other and the women
seemed to hate everything about being a wife.

But I bet if you had asked any of these men about male bashing, they
would talk about the damn feminists.  The fact that their wives or
girlfriends viewed them as big, overgrown, ugly, immoral, stupid
children just barely controlled by sex and food never seemed to
register.
Newsgroups: soc.women,talk.rape
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Subject: Re: lioness method
Keywords: stop rapes
Organization: Columbia University, Dept. of Biological Sciences.
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 23:09:35 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.203018.17242@mdd.comm.mot.com> booth@mdd.comm.mot.com (Greg Booth) writes:
>In <1992Aug11.063000.22635@cs.ucla.edu> coleman@rocky.cs.ucla.edu (Mike Coleman) writes:
>
>>kind.  The writer seem to be simultaneously promulgating the idea that women
>>are weak, and preparing to blame them for allowing themselves to be attacked.
>
>Where the hell did you get that from! It says that the idea that women
>are weak and defenseless is wrong, and shows how to prevent/stop
>attacks. There is no "blaming the victim" there, it is all "how not
>to be a victim".
>
  But also "My method is so simple that if you don't use it to stop an
attack, you must have wanted it." I agree with MC. I think the author is
working his way up to blaming the victim. The method was full of ideas
stated so positively that it seemed to me to "Read me and you won't get
raped".

DanZ

-- 
This article is for entertainment purposes only. Any facts, opinions,
narratives or ideas contained herein are not necessarily true, and do
not necessarily represent the views of any particular person.
From: rfelix@netcom.com (Robbie Felix)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: GOOD movie for women
Date: 21 Aug 92 13:51:57 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


Last night I saw a movie called "Strangers in Good Company". It was a
gentle movie about a small group of elderly women.

This was one of the most touching,gentle and thought-provoking movies
I have seen in about 5 years. It is not the big drama production that
American movie-makers seem to favor. It is a movie about the basic,
primal things that motivate us all. It has no sex, no violence,
nothing to shock or titillate.

The charcters are real women who use their real names. You will see
the evolution of women's roles in society and you will see people who
talk about stark reality in life.

I whole-heartedly encourage you to rent this in your local video store
if you can.

Best wishes,

rf
From: slzm9@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Personal Q, Need a Woman's View
Date: 13 Aug 92 20:03:52 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

   Hello, I know this is not alt.personals but I need a woman's
perspective. My girlfriend and I keep having the same fight
and I would like to know why. She usually tries to give me some
friendly advice:

	"When my missionary friend comes to my birthday party on
         Saturday please refrain from talking about religion with
         him."

   I usually sit there and think about it a little while. I consider
these facts: 1. Can I not be trusted to have a civil conversation - No
that's not it she knows I can do that. 2. It's really going to bother
here if we get in an argument - Yea that is probably it. 
   Then I  think well then I won't discuss religion with this fellow
but then I think to myself but if I am an atheist (and I am) and he
is a Mormon missionary (he is) how can we be friends and not talk
about religion. So I decide to acquiesce this first time and not talk
about it but be frank with my girlfriend that eventually we should
be able to talk about.
  
   That's all it took. I told here, "Ok but the next time he comes to
visit can you and I talk about letting religion be a topic." 
   "No", she says, "and you do not respect anything about the way I
think." She is shouting now. "It always has to be your way. Well
I am sick of it", she concludes.

   Now this went on for awhile but I don't get it. I just want to
be able to talk about interesting things with people that come over.
I don't want to argue with them. How am not "respecting her thinking"
when I resist her attempt to control my behavior?


Help, if you can,
Thanks.

zip 


Newsgroups: soc.women
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Another pogrom (was Re: Another program)
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 19:59:14 GMT


A few more general comments re: sexual harassment

1)  I think the concept has been 'reified'.  Because it has a name, people
assume that it exists and means something specific.  Actually, it's so vague
and general that it's not clear exactly what it means, if it even has
an objective meaning.

2)  I think the traditional concept of harassment is both more clearly
defined, and more appropriate to legislate against than 'sexual harssment'.

According to Black's Law Dictionary (or at least another poster quoting it:)_

	"A person committs a petty misdemeanor if, with purpose to
harass another, he:  1) makes a telephone call without purpose of
legitimate communications 2) insults, taunts or challenges another in
a manner likely to provoke violent or disorderly response  3) makes
repeated communications anonymously or at extremely inconvenient
hours, or in offensively coarse language  4) subjects another to an
offensive touching 5) engages in any other course of alarming conduct
serving no legitimate purpose of the actor."

Newsgroups: soc.women