HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Practise what you preach? (was:what is sexist?)
Date: 18 Nov 92 04:27:29 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: redondo.sw.stratus.com

In article <MUFFY.92Nov17142550@anableps.berkeley.edu>, muffy@anableps.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
> In article <1ebp37INNdch@transfer.stratus.com> dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber) writes:
> > Oh, you're not one of the avowed feminists who feel men shouldn't post to
> > soc.women (unless they agree with feminist viewpoints), since soc.women is
> > "womyn space"?
> 
> Exactly.

Okay, I'll remember this for future reference.

> > The problem is that it isn't feasible for me to determine
> > which set of feminist opinions you hold, other than those you have explictly
> > stated.
> 
> Well, it seems to me that it would make more sense for you to not make
> assumptions about my views based on *other* people's views.  I
> understand, though, that it is much more convenient for you to do so,
> since you can then accuse me (and other feminists, by the same method)
> of being hypocritical when I do not adhere to SOMEONE ELSE's expressed
> views.

Nope, try again.  Where did I accuse you of any hypocrisy?  I made an (apparently)
unwarranted assumption about your views on something and was corrected.  However,
since I have seen men take grief from women for not knowing that something would
offend them (e.g. compliments from strangers on one's appearance, which most women
here seem to find offensive, but many men, if not most wouldn't); I was only pointing
out that sometimes assuming a default is right and sometimes it is wrong - with way to
to tell.

> > I suppose it was unreasonable of me to assume [...] My error.
> 
> Yup.

Thank you. 

> Muffy
> --
> 
> Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
> ~Weavers' fingers flying on the loom/patterns shift too fast to be
>  discerned/all these years of thinking/ended up like this/in front
>  of all this beauty/understanding nothing~ - Bruce Cockburn

-- 

#include <std_disclaimer.h>

Dan S.
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: rfs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (richard.f.j.soyack)
Subject: Re: Cold Marriage
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 15:03:20 GMT
Keywords: Marriage

In article <1992Nov21.230335.6184@dragon.acadiau.ca> 890530m@dragon.acadiau.ca (Darren MacKenzie) writes:
>rfs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (richard.f.j.soyack) writes:
>
>>Do yourself a favor and seek professional help.  If she won't
>>go with you go by yourself.
>
>On the contrary, I do believe it's HER that needs the help, not HIM!!
>-Doc

Actually, it sounded to me like he was in a great deal of pain
because of something that was happening between the two of
them.  I suggested they both go with the intent of correcting
the situation, and if she wouldn't go that he go to get help
with the pain he was feeling.  

I have no idea what you read into what I wrote, but the above
is what I intended.

Rich Soyack

Newsgroups: soc.women
From: krw@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (keith.r.smith)
Subject: Re: Supermodels contribute to spiraling low self esteem?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 15:43:59 GMT

In article <90380002@hpsad.sad.hp.com> sam@hpsad.sad.hp.com (Vicky Hansen) writes:
>In soc.women, brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>    >Perhaps feminists would feel better about themselves if the only pictures
>    >in magazine ads, posters, etc. were of ugly sloppy pathetic women.  Is that
>    >a solution to their self-esteem problems?  I doubt it.
>
>Although I agree that advertizements does not need "ugly sloppy pathetic"
>women as the models, I would like to see more variety.  I see no real reason
>that all ads have to have someone 5'8",100lbs,with long, thick hair.  Why
>is a woman 5'4", 120 lbs, with short hair not just as good at advertizing a
>vacuum or car?

Good point!

Keith R
From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Cold Marriage
Date: 23 Nov 92 04:43:52 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

In article <1992Nov21.230236.2634@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu> xenon@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu writes:
>In article <By21JL.MA2@NeoSoft.com>, martink@NeoSoft.com (Martin Koistinen) writes:
><sad, horrible stuff about how his wife is turning cold, deleted>
>
>> 	I  love  her  very much.  I want our relationship to work.  I
>> want  us  to  have  a happy, successful marriage.  I vowed to her
>> that  I'd  never  leave her and never cheat on her.  
>
>Sounds to me like she has a fear of intimacy, and the more you try to get close
>to her, the worse she is going to get.  Most people want their relationships to
>work, but there is no way you can make it work unilaterally.  Insist that she
>go with you to counseling.  If she refuses, then you had better just leave, 
>because if you don't she is going to make your life a living hell.  It may seem
>cold to say it, but what she is doing to you is emotional abuse, and as long as
>you make excuses for her and try to accomodate it, the problem will only get
>worse.
>  
>- xenon

What Xenon said.  Been there.

Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM 
Xref: sparky soc.women:20047 alt.feminism:4784 soc.men:19682
From: dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Self Appreciation (was: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Date: 20 Nov 92 21:34:24 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: redondo.sw.stratus.com

In article <1992Nov20.183409.19229@mr.med.ge.com>, wendy@sundown.mil.wi.us writes:
> Teri Tracey (teri@sdd.hp.com) wrote:
> > charleen@ADS.COM (Charleen Bunjiovianna) writes:
> > > wendy@sundown.mil.wi.us writes:
> > >>
> > >>I will say this. You are looking at this from one side only. I am starting
> > >>to see it from the other side. Whether you believe it or not, women are 
> > >>looked down upon in this society. Very few men treat them as equals. 
> > >
> > >But don't tell me that I, as a woman, am treated in such-and-such a 
> > >way and that you can prove this through your own experience.  I don't
> > >buy it.  
> > 
> > One counter-example does not disprove a generalization, because the
> > nature of a generalization does NOT imply that there exist NO counter
> > examples.  Let's take a different tack.  Do you feel that all or even 
> > most women in this society are treated as equals?

Let me see if I have this right.  Wendy made the generalization that few
if any men treat women as equals.  She justified this by saying that she
personally is now seeing things this way.  That is apparently okay by you.
But when Charleen says that she doesn't see things that way, you dismiss her
statement by saying that it is only one example.  Note that Charleen *didn't*
say that society treats women a certain way.  She disagreed with Wendy's
claim based on her personal experience.

> > Teri
> > .
> > .
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Wendy

-- 

#include <std_disclaimer.h>

Dan S.
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: rfs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (richard.f.j.soyack)
Subject: Re: Cold Marriage
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 17:14:17 GMT
Keywords: Marriage

Do yourself a favor and seek professional help.  If she won't
go with you go by yourself.

Good luck
Rich Soyack
From: stewart@geophysics.harvard.edu (Cheryl Stewart)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Entry level salaries (was: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Date: 16 Nov 92 21:26:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: das.1992Nov16.212644.19459
Reply-To: stewart@geophysics.harvard.edu
Organization: Dept. of Earth & Planetary Sciences, Harvard University

>As things go, I would think of one with a doctorate as more
>than just middle class. 


Right.  More than just middle class.  You try supporting a family on
$20-30K with no medical insurance and constant threat of unemployment.


I've been doing it for nearly three years now with my Ph.D. in Geophysics.
I've had to move seven times in three years, because gee, nobody seems to
have a full years support for me.  Oh, they support their friends wives, 
their own wives and their girlfriends, but that's just because there are
so few women who actually survive in geophysics if they're not willing
to "put out."  And if you're found out while putting out, you can either
marry in or get out.  I don't put out, which makes me "problematic."


Starting salaries for women in geophysics at the BA/BS levels are 68% of
that of men.  As opposed to, for instance 112% for women in Physics or
102% for women in Engineering. (Figures discussed and presented by Marilyn
Suiter in January 1992 Geotimes). The percentages get worse as the level
of education gets higher, and no matter what the starting salary, the 
amount a woman makes with equivalent education dives below that which a 
man makes within five years.  (study published in last years' Graduating
Engineer).  
Xref: sparky soc.women:20164 alt.abortion.inequity:5279 talk.abortion:49241 alt.feminism:4887 soc.men:19814
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: DNA testing
Date: 23 Nov 92 14:27:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.By6Atw.9HF

In article <1eoohnINN52k@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>
>>I seems to me it would have to be invasive, unless we find
>>out how to go through alternate dimensions.  There are some
>>other questions here: Is this a proposal for compulsory testing?  
>>Suppose no one wanted to know who the father was?  Or suppose 
>>the father(s) didn't particularly want to know; would it still 
>>be required? Obtaining DNA from some of the possible fathers
>>might be a problem.
>>-- 
>
>Especially when the mother claims that Santa Clause is the father.
>Ha Ha.  Or is it Ho Ho Ho?

Perhaps in the not-too-distant future we'll be able to identify
the genes for full white beards, fat bellies, and hearty laughter.

Then we can make a composite sketch of Santa Claus's DNA,
and round up the usual suspects who are 99% homologous.

Don             ;^)
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
From: das@voodoo.boeing.com (Deb Schwartz)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Mammogram
Date: 19 Nov 92 20:52:54 GMT
Organization: Yet Another Graphics Project, Bellevue, WA

In article <Nov.16.10.02.44.1992.28032@net.bio.net> charleen@net.bio.net (Charleen Bunjiovianna) writes:
>
>I feel silly in retrospect for not having done it sooner.  It's a quick
>procedure, and in my case, it was completely covered by my medical
>insurance.  If you're of an age where you should be having mammograms
>done, do it.  It's worth the (very small) discomfort.
>
Good description, Charleen.  For the most part, it's not a painful procedure,
just somewhat uncomfortable. If having a mammogram hurts a lot, the X-ray tech
isn't doing it right.

A tip:  if you're prone to sore breasts before your period, don't have a
mammogram done at that time.  

And remember:  mammograms are only about 80% effective in detecting breast
lumps, so be sure to keep doing those monthly self-exams, also.

------
Debbie Schwartz // das@voodoo.ca.boeing.com  // ....uw-beaver!bcsaic!voodoo!das
From: hwatters@armltd.uucp (Helen Watters)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: <none>
Date: 19 Nov 92 16:53:21 GMT
Organization: Advanced RISC Machines Ltd


Doc
>I expect flames from all the feminists from this one, and I can't wait to
>see the replies.

It seems to me that anytime a guy gets a reaction from a woman
he doesn't like he blames it on feminism. If it were not for that
dammed feminism, poisoning women's minds, they would all be sweet
nice people. Bullshit. Women believe it or not are people
and as such women's behaviours range from the diabolical to the
wonderful.

Anyway back to the subject of unisex washrooms.  I once went into a 
men's washroom by accident. It was in a hotel and they had those 
fancy signs up and I couldn't tell which toilets belonged 
to which sex.

> A few
>minutes later (I'm back at my table) some bitch comes over (another waitress)
>and gives me the third degree of how that was wrong, and other bullshit.

I got the same kind of treatment out of the guy who walked in after me.
I guess he was a bitch too :-) or can bitch only refer to women?  What 
is the male equivalent?
That kind of attitude is is down to the type of person. Not their sex, 
not whether they are a feminist or not, etc.  By the way if a woman 
wants to speak her mind, she has a right to.  Men have been doing this 
for years:-)

What has changed over the last hundred years is that more women are no
longer dependant on a man and so are free to behave as themselves, 
without fear of being punished (beaten, starved etc.).  In fact women 
are free to behave, if they so choose, just like a man :-)

So I guess, if women are people and entitled to behave in a way that is 
right for them, you are entitled to make sweeping comments about 
feminists.  I do find your generalistions a little wide, in a similar
vein to all men are...(put in whatever derogatory remark you feel
like.)

Anyway I seem to have wondered away from the subject of unisex washrooms.
Of course a male poster would never drift or ramble, when replying to 
a post:-)  

Back to the subject of unisex washrooms
What kind of reaction would I expect from men as a group to unisex
washrooms? Well, I would expect some men to be upset, some who think 
it great and some to be neutral. In fact I expect men to have as a wide
range of reactions to this situation, as women. 

Helen 

PS I prefer single sex washrooms, but it maybe, because I am used to that.
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: <none>
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 04:39:05 GMT

890530m@dragon.acadiau.ca (Darren MacKenzie) writes:
>mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:
 
>>rini
>>-who has a co-ed bathroom in her house.
 
>That's not a very PUBLIC bathroom, is it Rini?

Actually, no, it is a private bathroom, in my house.

rini
-next question?

Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Self Appreciation (was: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 03:22:53 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.171018.4931@mr.med.ge.com> wendy@sundown.mil.wi.us writes:
>
>I just thought I would say that I find this whole thread interesting. Being a
>Transexual on her way to transition, I can understand both sides. Most men,
>being members of the White Male System, have no idea of what women go through.

We know, and most women know exactly what men go through, and what it means
in all ways from the mans viewpoint on up. Obviously men are not only deaf,
dumb (?) and blind, but insensitive and stupid.

Men have no clue. Men just don't get it. We know, we've been told.

>They cannot remotely see how women are inherently treated as inferior in this
>culture. It sure was a learning experience for me, I can tell you that!!!!!

Why don't you. That is, a few details if you please.
 
>I suggest that before you men spoute off about how women are not treated as
>inherently inferior, you become better informed. 

Why do I think that it would be sexist to say the same thing to women
spouting off about men? (you know, that they had better become better
informed)

>                                           Try the book "Women's Reality"
>by Ann Schaef. It might enlighten you. It did me. 

Did you have a clue -before- reading the book?

>                                                  Helped me understand why
>women sometimes think of themselves as second class citizens. And why I'll
>be treated the same way as I go out into society as a women. Hasn't changed
>my mind what-so-ever, but has prepared me somewhat to cope with it.
 
Since you made a public anouncement, I hope you won't mind my asking why?
(The sex change that is)
 
>Wendy

Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: soc.women
From: nola@cats.ucsc.edu (Nola Van Vugt)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: A basic question
Date: 21 Nov 92 07:06:08 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu


In article <By0149.Cq9@unix.portal.com> mzank@shell.portal.com (matthew c zank) writes:
>I like to ask this for fun, what body characteristics
>of men turn women off? does anyone know?
Arranging a few strands of hair over the top of their head in order to
pretend they aren't bald.  Actually any attempt to hide baldness
fairly screams "I am insecure!"  instant turn off.  Also big bellies.
But they can be tolerated if the man behind it is intelligent and
competent.  and secure enough to show his bald spot.
Xref: sparky soc.women:20154 alt.abortion.inequity:5264 talk.abortion:49161 alt.feminism:4873 soc.men:19790
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: DNA testing
Date: 22 Nov 1992 19:54:31 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:

>I seems to me it would have to be invasive, unless we find
>out how to go through alternate dimensions.  There are some
>other questions here: Is this a proposal for compulsory testing?  
>Suppose no one wanted to know who the father was?  Or suppose 
>the father(s) didn't particularly want to know; would it still 
>be required? Obtaining DNA from some of the possible fathers
>might be a problem.
>-- 

Especially when the mother claims that Santa Clause is the father.
Ha Ha.  Or is it Ho Ho Ho?

							--  Michal
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: wendy@sundown.mil.wi.us
Subject: Re: Self Appreciation (was: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Organization: Nowhere
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 15:07:52 GMT

Lenore Levine (levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu) wrote:
> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
> 
> >  If an MMPI (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory --
> >  a standard psychological test) were to be administered 
> >  to transexuals and non-transexuals, what differences would
> >  it reveal?   Would the MMPI for biologically male transexuals
> >  be more similar to non-transexual biological females?
> 
> >---peter
> 
> An interesting question. 
> 
> However, I wonder how valid the MMPI is at all...
> 
> My informal study of it, in the 70's, certainly led me to question its
> validity -- especially in the face of cultural change. 

Lenore,

I was given the MMPI-2, an updated version taking into account critisism's
of the first version and cultural changes. At least that was what I was told.

Wendy
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 14:44:17 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.024836.18702@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes...
>
>MLP> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>
>MLP> >Uncertain parentage should be made certain.
>
>MLP> How???
>
>DNA testing...

DNA testing is not yet reliable. It has been accepted in court,
but several false positives have happened in court cases, and I
suspect that it is no longer accepted as an absolute indicator
in court.

In time I am sure it will become reliable. But not yet.
 
>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

You do realize that not being a native of the U.S., Cthulhu is not
eligable for the presidency. 

>---
> * SLMR 2.1a * Corel Draw does it all?  If not, there's always EDLIN.


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: Entry level salaries (was: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 16:45:19 GMT

starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu (starbuck) writes:
>muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

>>So, as the median is just one salary figure, all you can say is that
>>that particular woman makes more than that particular man.  To come up
>>with the "women make X for each $1 earned *per* man," you have to use
>>the mean, which is the average salary *per* man or woman.  How about
>>running back to those figures and posting the mean?  And the number of
>>people in each group?

...

>You just like to piss on every thing.  You know things have change and you
>are just not willing to admit it are you?  You are a stumbling block to
>women.  A femininst like yourself just creates more resentment towards
>women because you say you represent them?  Bullshit you a whiner, admit
>it?  When is the last time you had anything good to say about women in
>society?  I mean something positive.

Starbuck, Muffy has asked perfectly valid statistical questions.  
*I* see no flame in there.  (Indeed, there is *no* position stated 
there.)

Now please look at your post.  You accuse her of "pissing" on stuff,
and being a "whiner" and a "stumbling block"...  What's the deal?  
Who's being the vitriolic complainer here?

>I bet you don't understand why more and more people are begining to think
>feminism sucks.

I would certianly *hope* it's not because people like you go around 
calling feminists "whiners" for asking questions....

rini
From: levin@bbn.com (Joel B Levin)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: She's back!
Date: 17 Nov 1992 15:24:13 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com

In <1992Nov17.050327.15703@smds.com> Richard Harter writes:
  (re Cheryl)
|In article <1992Nov16.212644.19459@das.harvard.edu> stewart@geophysics.harvard.edu writes:
|
|	You have been missed.  Welcome back.

I agree, and I say hurray!  I may even resubscribe to s.w now.

		/J
Newsgroups: soc.women