HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: glenn.nosworthy@synapse.org (Glenn Nosworthy) 
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Seperatists etc.
Date: 28 Dec 92 00:16:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: SYNAPSE BBS - GATINEAU, QUEBEC - 819-561-4321
Reply-To: glenn.nosworthy@synapse.org (Glenn Nosworthy) 

jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:

JK>Speaking as a woman who is a computer nerd (ie, part of the intersecti
JK>I find tech talk very common in social situations (and get regularily 
JK>chewed out by non-techies for it :). 

Jen, as a self-confessed female "computer nerd", perhaps you can answer 
this question which came up in a discussion I recently had with some 
friends.  Why do you think women, in general, seem less interested 
(obsessed?) with technology?  The person responsible for computer 
programming (stats analyses) in my department is a woman, but she 
expresses little interest in computers outside of work (does not read the 
rags, only has a dumb terminal at home, etc). However, most men I know 
(from a wide variety of disciplines) are in interested in technology - 
computers in particular - and not all of these are folks who could be 
described as "nerds".  Of course, there are also the males that are 
obsessed with stereo equipment or cars or ham radios, etc etc.  By 
contrast, my girlfriend is quite competent on my computer, but uses it 
only for word-processing - she has no interest in using it for 
educational, creative, or entertainment purposes (and Lord how I've 
tried).  When I brought my new stereo home all flushed with pride, she 
didn't blink an eye. This seems typical of the women I know. And I wonder 
if women can ever make real inroads into fields such as computer science, 
engineering, etc, if, as a group, they are uninterested in the 'products' 
of these sciences. Your thoughts on this?. . . .

---
 . WinQwk 2.0 a#0 . Unregistered Evaluation Copy
                                                        
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Feminist group disrupts men's meeting
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 17:30:32 GMT
Keywords: Campus NOW Brownshirts, Enough for Dinesh D'Souza's next book

In article <Bzq6BE.BL7@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dmcanzi@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi) writes:
)In article <1992Dec22.225556.13411@rat.csc.calpoly.edu> dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Dave Gross) writes:
)>	Despite charges that NOW was violating the men's right to freedom of
)>association, it turned out that the women were the ones illegally being
)>blocked from entry, since under the Sunshine Law "stricktly speaking, it had
)>to be open to everyone that wanted to go" Paul Gates, a research assistant at
)>the Brecher Center for Freedom of Information was quoted as saying in the
)>*Alligator* two days later.
)
)No doubt this "Sunshine Law" also permits men to invade "women-only" meetings.

In theory, at least....
Xref: sparky soc.men:22034 alt.feminism:6739
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Date: 3 Jan 93 06:42:15 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: soc.men,alt.feminism
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

| 4) Is not it interesting that when women are the losing side (e.g.
|    more men learn math), the default assumption is that society
|    is to be blamed, and the poor weak women need some compensation,
|    but when men are the losing side, the "pro equality people" are
|    ready with long explanation why it is just biology...

In article <1993Jan2.165409.5401@panix.com> 
gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>I'm not saying that the possible social causes of the difference
>should not be investigated.  But the biological element should
>not be discounted either.  

Do you take a similar approach when women are the losing side?
Xref: sparky soc.men:22007 alt.feminism:6719
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Damned Articles
Date: 2 Jan 93 17:00:18 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
| )| The following article was rejected from soc.feminism. ...

gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
| )I think if your articles are going to wear this badge of
| )honor, we ought to have the citation as well.  That is, it
| )would seem fair -- and would satisfy our curiosity -- if we
| )could know what reason the moderators gave.  Even though what
| )the reason must have been often seems all too obvious.

bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
| I think that would be too much like posting private E-mail, though I must
| admit I was tempted to do just that when I was still reading soc.feminism
| and experienceing some severe problems with the moderation there.

I suppose if people are going to make a public issue of
the rejection, the permission of the moderators might be
obtained.  I have never received a rejection slip from
soc.feminism which I think would embarrass either the
writer or the recipient if published, but I suppose some
people may have.
-- 

 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Xref: sparky soc.men:21929 alt.feminism:6656
From: jlacey@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (james.w.lacey)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: shaving
Date: 22 Dec 92 22:07:12 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <4422@unisql.UUCP> wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie) writes:
>
>	I'm not sure that this is an appropriate posting for soc.men,
>since it doesn't mention abortion or feminism or how women only get
>70 cents on the dollar, but I hope you'll forgive me.
>
>	What's your favorite shaving cream?  For years I used Barbasol,
>but I've switched to Edge.  I shave with my father's old double-edge 
>Gillette, both as a link to the past and because it's much smoother
>and more comfortable then any plastic flexy rotating-head throwaway I've
>tried.  I used to use Wilkinson Sword blades, but now all I can ever
>find are Gillette Blue...  Were can I get good razor blades these days?
>
>								W.rat

I have switched to shaving cream in a tube.  Some good brands
are Body Shop and Tom's of Maine.  While not cheap (~5), they
do last quite a while.  (You also need just a small amount,
about as much as you would put on a toothbrush if it were
toothpaste.)  Tube shaving cream is also made by colgate
and other "mainstream" companies.

As for blades, I thing the demand for good-old double edged blades
has caused a reduction in available brands.  The only ones
usually available here (Mass) are Gillette and Shick... and
the Gillette blades are made in South America (which is OK by me,
but shows that US demand is not enough to justify production.)

When Gillette introduced their new Sensor razor a couple of
years ago, they had so much demand that they withdrew their
multi-million advertising campaign, as they were afraid of
not being able to keep up with sales pressure.  I think that
is where "double edge" users have gone.

Anyway, back to the fray: should men with artifical wombs have to sign a 
pre-sex agreement?  even if they are pro-choice?


-- 
     Jim Lacey  --  my own opinions    
     email:  att!cbnewsl!jlacey  or  jlacey@cbnewsl.cb.att.com
     D'ou venons-nous? Que sommes-nous? Ou allons-nous?
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: "Amy Young Leith" <alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: How come?
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 15:39:18 -0500

In article <1992Dec23.182636.2613@linus.mitre.org> cgates@mitre.org (Curt Gates) writes:
>In the current mood of flame throwing, I might as well tell ya that if you 
>were working for two bits on the dollar, or skimming an allowance from the 
>family food budget, you too would worry about pennies. But you knew that 
>already, right?  

True.  On days when I have nothing but change in my pocket it matters
too.

>So what s the real reason?  Sharing costs (or showing insensitivity to 
>costs) symbolizes the solidarity of the group -- like, we are all part of 
>a group and we share and share alike. Or, hey, the next round is on me. 
>Yea, team!

My husband offered to buy the first round when three of us went out
the other night.  He should have known better, the tab there was more
than the others.  =)  If you plan to hop to three places, you ALWAYS
take the second tab, it's smaller.  =)  I got that one. 

amy
-- 
alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu for personal mail
			    All business mail to alyoung@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Dislcaimer:I only speak for myself.  Anyone who thinks differently is a fool.
			(This means NOT my employer!!)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 15:28:23 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.164240.9686@news.cs.indiana.edu> "Amy Young Leith" <alyoung@cherry.ucs.indiana.edu> writes:
>
>>rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes:
>>
>>>For every woman that is the victim of violence there are three men that
>>>are the victims of violence.  Since "we" see a special need for action
>>>against violence against women, but not against men, the natural conclusion
>>>is that "we" feel that violence against a woman is more than three times
>>>as serious as violence against a man.
>>>
>>>Do you not see that this sort of viewpoint is perceived as amounting to
>>>saying, "Women are more important, more human than men.  Their hurts matter
>>>more.  Women are entitled; men are not."
>
>Given the statistics, there is a lot of sexism going on here in this issue. 
>
>Violence against women is seen as a "bigger evil" perhaps because
>women are still viewed as "unable" to protect themselves, or unfairly
>"outranked" by men.  This is one possible explaination which is quite
>sexist. 
>
>The other could follow the logic that women do not victimize men as
>much as men victimize women, therefore the latter is a "larger"
>problem.  

This is a curious line to draw, as women have been -defined- as victims
by so many groups. I suspect by this measure, the conclusion is a given,
and not especially meaningful.

From the posted statistics women are violent to men about as often as
men are violent to women, and one report said for the same reasons.

Using the statistics posted as the measure of victimization, who would
you say has a "larger" problem?
 
>amy
>-- 
>alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu for personal mail
>			    All business mail to alyoung@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>**Dislcaimer:I only speak for myself.  Anyone who thinks differently is a fool.
>			(This means NOT my employer!!)


Newsgroups: soc.men
From: levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine)
Subject: Re: Boycotts (was Re: Why are many low-income women fat?)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 16:35:55 GMT

gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:

>In article <C0194t.pA@news.cso.uiuc.edu> 
>levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:

>[Social justice]
>>>        Please define.

>>I can't. I am not even sure that one rigid definition would always
>>be appropriate.  

>You reject the usual definition, but you don't give any other definition.
>How do you suggest to discuss something so undefined?
>(This is not a rhetoric question.)

Good always has to be defined, ultimately, case by case. I don't think 
there is any one concept which will define it in *all* circumstances. 

Which is not to say there might not be concepts which define it
in *most* circumstances; but these concepts form a practical,
not a theoretical definition of good.

I would not follow any book definition of good against the 
promptings of my conscience.

>>I don't know what "great" means. But the fact that conditions are
>>better in this country, on the whole, than many others, does not
>>mean they cannot be improved.

>If you have a machine that works reasonably well then it is not
>a good idea to "improve" it before you understand it.

Agreed. But even in this "Bronze age of oppression" (to quote
another poster) *some* people understand the machine enough
to make *some* improvements.
 
>It seems to me a better idea to start fixing what does not work.
>E.g. finding out why NY has the highest state taxation on an
>average family in the nation, but it gives lousy services.

Alfonse d'Amato? You should hear my mother -- who lives in New
York -- talk about him!

(And let me be nonpartisan and mention David Dinkins...)

>>>        I have a very *clear* concept of right and wrong.  It is not
>>>        muddled by goofy social ideals.  For me, right and wrong are
>>>        black and right--there can be no "almost right" because that
>>>        almost certainly implies that there were ulterior motives,
>>>        and I consider motivation a prime factor in determining
>>>        right and wrong.

Please! This is a quote from Yamanari, **not** from me.

Lenore Levine
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 18:32:17 GMT

In article <1993Jan2.165409.5401@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>| ...
>| 4) Is not it interesting that when women are the losing side (e.g.
>|    more men learn math), the default assumption is that society
>|    is to be blamed, and the poor weak women need some compensation,
>|    but when men are the losing side, the "pro equality people" are
>|    ready with long explanation why it is just biology...
>
>I'm not saying that the possible social causes of the difference
>should not be investigated.  But the biological element should
>not be discounted either.  In other words, there's probably not
>enough hard information around -- except, of course, if you want
>to use the issue for propaganda.


	Ahh, well.  Then I would like to make the statement
	that women are inferior to men at mathematics.

	Remember, I'm not saying that the possible social causes of
	the differences should not be investigates, but, the biological
	element should not be discounted either.  In other words, there's 
	probably not enough hard information around (but that doesn't
	seem to dissuade anybody).



-- 
	Blaming "society" for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.

         ---  boycott == censorship == closed mindedness == cowardice  ---
		   	     Pain teaches.   <for mailing and other info, .plan>
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Damned Articles
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 18:45:02 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.201053.8237@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
)gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
)| The following article was rejected from soc.feminism. ...
)
)I think if your articles are going to wear this badge of
)honor, we ought to have the citation as well.  That is, it
)would seem fair -- and would satisfy our curiosity -- if we
)could know what reason the moderators gave.  Even though what
)the reason must have been often seems all too obvious.

I think that would be too much like posting private E-mail, though I must
admit I was tempted to do just that when I was still reading soc.feminism
and experienceing some severe problems with the moderation there.

Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
From: "Amy Young Leith" <alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Parallell situations (was Re: Muffy becomes anti-choice)
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 20:12:50 -0500

In article <1hb1i8INNf40@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>You don't get it, Daniel.  What you posted is not a parallel.
>
>Ya gotta wonder....
>
>Unsupported assertion.  Why?  A woman retains the right NOT to legally 
>dissolve all ties, but to REMOVE the fetus from her body.  If she were to

Oh please, this is not talk.abortion, no need to dance around the real
issue.  An abortion stops a developing pregnancy.  It ends what, if
allowed to continue, would have been a financial and legal
responsability.  It does not just "remove" it as if it's going to go
somewhere else and latch on.  Granted, with technology advancing, this
just may happen, but I'd like to see it happen, because then there
will be no need to debate abortion.  All of these anti-choice people
who scream that they'd take care of the children would really be
forced to....  From my womb to yours, here's your chance.  Put up or
shut up, people.  =)

>remove the fetus from her body and it survived, she would STILL have legal
>responsibilities toward the fetus.  Same with the man.

But then it isn't an abortion, now is it?  

>Upon what basis do you make this unsupported assertion?  What leads you to
>the conclusion that a woman's right to her physical person is a 'parallell'
>to a man's control  over his wallet (conveniently ignoring the woman's
>wallet all the while)?

It's not just a biological issue.  It's a legal and financial issue as
well.  No, there is never going to be any "true" exactly-the-same
parallel because men cannot become pregnant.  Duh.

>The situation from the very gitgo is not parallel. And that renders the
>rest of it garbage.

No, I think it's a very reasonable solution to the problem. 

amy
-- 
alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu for personal mail
			    All business mail to alyoung@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Dislcaimer:I only speak for myself.  Anyone who thinks differently is a fool.
			(This means NOT my employer!!)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.feminism
From: bouche2@server.uwindsor.ca (BOUCHER DAVID            )
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.women,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: What can we expect from President Hillary Clinton?
Date: 3 Jan 1993 13:38:00 GMT
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada

In article <1993Jan3.024529.1581@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>In article <C07Kqz.H65@ddsw1.mcs.com> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:

>| Yep, and those false accusations ought to be a Class "X" (as in just as bad
>| as selling cocaine to a 5-year old) felony.
>
>Lying under oath if proven is called perjury and is a
>felony.  News to you guys?

Just try and PROVE that an allegation of sexual abuse is false.  I have talked
to several experts in the field who have told me that there is nothing that
would even be considered to be EVIDENCE that sexual abuse did not occur.

Yes, you read that right.  There is no fact whatsoever that could be cited
that would be considered to be evidence against an allegation of sexual 
abuse, for the experts have an alternative explanation that would still 
allow the possibility of abuse.  Thus an accusation of abuse is unfalsifiable,
even though in rare cases the courts might not believe it.

-db
From: DPIROT@vm.ucs.UAlberta.CA
Subject: The White Feather Campaign
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 03:57:22 GMT

Several 'womens groups' have been reported in the media as
expressing outrage at the media reports of systematized rape camps
in Bosnia, and are demanding military intervention in Bosnia to
bring and end to the practice.
As has already been pointed out in several postings, the reports
are similar to the stories that were circulated in 1914, during the
German invasion of Belgium about nuns being raped and babies
bayonetted by 'the Boche', that were used to stir up war sentiment
and encourage young men to volunteer for military service, stories
that were later found to be fictitious.
It is likely, judging from the lack of confirming evidence and from
the opinions of aid workers in Bosnia that the reports are greatly
exaggerated, that the stories have been made up in order to stir up
sympathy for a Balkan war. Recently the Bosnian government accused
General Lewis MacKenzie, the Canadian former commander of the UN
peace keeping forces, of raping and killing four Bosnian girls.
This is the sort of nonsense that is coming out of that part of the
world.
However, even if there were some truth to the allegations, what
seems to be happening is that the feminists are prepared to
sacrifice the lives of young American men in order to protect the
virtue of women. This seems to me to be a major step backward.
What will we see next - feminists in the street handing out white
feathers to young men to shame them into going to war to defend
womankind from the Boche?
Don't fall for it, guys.
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Do Women Hate Tech Talk?  (Was: Seperatists etc.)
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 04:49:37 GMT

dwelch@mpd.tandem.com (Dan Welch) writes:
>muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums) writes:

>>>Face it, you put a bunch of computer
>>>nerds in a room, and it will likely turn to tech talk.  If women are
>>>there, those same conversations often don't occur -- different topics
>>>are discussed.

>>Absolutely false, in my experience.

>Absolutely *true*, though, in mine.  In fact, I get pressure from women
>to *not* talk about technical stuff, even if I have an inclination to.

Hmm.  False in mine too.  Gosh, what are we to do: take a vote?

I think the point is that non-technical people often think computer
geek talk is boring, right?  And there aren't as many geeky women,
right?  So why not say, "If non-geeks are there, those same 
conversations often don't occur.."  (Or do you really got pressure 
from geeky women not to talk tech?)

rini
From: kartik@hls.com (Kartik Chandrasekhar)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: RE: Vasectomies
Date: 21 Dec 1992 09:22:12 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

Hi,

Keith Garrard writes:

> Oh Don, how could you or any man even consider getting a vasectomy?
> As a man, I feel that the spermal excrement is at the essence of
> my experience as a man.  Most of the women I used to date really
> enjoyed the excitement of seeing me spray my "love juices" over their
> pulsating bodies.  How a man can even think of depriving himself of
> that pleasure, is beyond me.

	I think your fear is  unjustified.  In a vasectomy only 
the vessels which carry the sperms from the testicles known as the 
'Vas deference' are tied and blocked. 

The body and content of the seminal fluid is mainly provided by other 
glands such as the prostrate which are unaffected by a vasectomy.
Thus you can 'spray' all you want (the same volume) after a vasectomy 
without much of a difference except that you will 'spraying' 'blanks'. 
It does not affect your potency in any other way.

	The above is based on my general reading and I would gladly stand
corrected if somebody with experience or authority in this area
would state otherwise.

	So guys lets not scare the few men who take it upon themselves
to provide a safe (and mostly permanent) method of contraception even 
though it means minor surgery for them.

kartik


Xref: sparky soc.men:21883 alt.feminism:6619