HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: "Amy Young Leith" <alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: a question to married women
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 20:15:51 -0500

In article <Bzq3A2.1Hn@news.udel.edu> geoqwang@brahms.udel.edu (Qinxian Wang) writes:
>I recently read some books and maganizes about the differences between men
>and women, and I am amazed by the different ways of thinking for men and
>women.  It seems to me that men in general don't know women, even they live
>together because of the fundamental difference - women feel and men don't,
>as I understand.
>
>I am just curious, does your husband know you? 

If a person, whether they be gender X or Y, to use equal variables,
looks at you as a PERSON, then yes, they know you.  Men and women are
no more different from one another basically than Jane and Jill are to
one another.  If you THINK in the terms of how "women" and "men"
behave, and think, you will most likely find yourself missing the real
picture because of your reliance on stereotypes.  

Yes, society has pushed one gender in areas that it hasn't.  And
society has done a lot of other things, but if you bother to get PAST
what society says and makes you do and get to know the *person*
beneath regardless of gender, then you will get to *know* them.

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!!)
From: sam@hpsad.sad.hp.com (Vicky Hansen)
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 16:35:54 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: Bodyfat Reduction (GO FOR IT !)
Organization: HP Signal Analysis Division - Rohnert Park, CA
Newsgroups: soc.women

In article <1992Dec22.084239.4779@sei.cmu.edu> bjz@sei.cmu.edu (Barbara Zayas) writes:
>|> 
>|>        My response to anyone who wants to drop down to 4-7% bodyfat is: GO
>|>    FOR IT !!!  Think about it. If you were to grab a hand full of the fat
>|>    around your waste, ... what is that fat right there doing for you? It's
>|>    not cushioning any muscle tissue nor is it providing cushion protection
>|>    for the joints in your body from that location. It simply sits there and
>|>    does absolutely nothing for you. The mere fact that your body can have
>|>    enough excess fat to be able to grab denotes that you already have all
>|>    of the necesary fatty material in between the muscles and organs. The ex-
>|>    cess is excess. 
>
>Many women (myself included) fail to menstruate when our body
>fat percentage dips too low.  This happened for me, when I
>measured 6-7%.  I'm at my healthiest when I am ~15%.

The medical establishment does not recommend that women get below 10%.  The
reason for this is that women *do* put a percentage of their fat near the
surface.  If there is no surface fat then there is *not* enough around the
organs and muscles.  I virtually stop menstruating at 6% as well eventhough
I certainly still have "excess" fat on my rear.  
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism,talk.abortion
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: How to Protect Women
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 19:34:32 GMT

In article <168C6A033.SURGDM@mizzou1.missouri.edu> Diane writes:
>In article <1992Dec23.164510.4429@netcom.com>
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
> 
>>Maybe I am uninformed in this, but are not your chances of drowning in a
>>swimming pool many times greater than those of becoming a stalking victim?
>>I mean, even in abusive relationships, this is extremely rare, to the
>>best of my knowledge.
>>
>>So while the possibility may be real, it does not reasonably look like
>>a prime consideration, even in abusive relationships.
>>
>>Rich
> 
>I sincerely hope that you are never in an abusive relationship that
>turns into a stalking situation. It is *much* more common than most
>people realize. 

How much more common?

>                    I was in such a situation, and it is small comfort
>than it is considered so rare as to warrant little consideration in
>the minds of the general public.

Agreed, but you cleanly missed the point that I was making.
  
>People who are in an abusive situation have usually become very aware
>of what their abuser can be expected to do in given situation. If a person
>could reasonably expect, based on past experience, that his/her abuser
>would stalk, I would have to respect that evaluation. 

Which male poster was just called an accident just waiting to happen
(or something similar) for stating several abusive relationships that
he had had the misfortune to have? If she has been in several abusive
ralationships, would she not be as much to blame as, who was that Mr.
Dunphy? Or is there some politically correct method for placing the
blame?

BTW, would your respect for her evaluation extend to jail before there
is cause, based soley upon said evaluation?

Every person is an individual, until you stereotype them. 

>                                                   It is extremely annoying
>to me that so many "haven't been there; didn't do that" people can have such
>definite ideas about what other people should do or think in extraordinarily
>stressful and dangerous circumstances.

This looks kinda like what they call "putting words in others mouths", or
the text equivalant. Since nothing I have said is even remotely connected
to the above statement, I must respectfully ask, what the hell are you
talking about?
  
>Diane


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism,talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Parallel situations
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1993 04:40:59 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <1993Jan1.015955.117@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Dec29.210320.9276@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>> Kevin Darcy
>>> Larry Margolis
>>
>>>>Similarly, there is no formal "billing" of pregnancy/child-support costs
>>>>until a child is born, and the paternity award is made, but that doesn't mean
>>>>the charges aren't INCURRED before the child is born.
>>>
>>>The charges are incurred by the woman whether or not a child results; the
>>>man is only obligated to pay a portion of those charges if a child results
>>>and a paternity award is made.  If no child results, then there is no
>>>paternity award, and therefore no financial obligation for the man even
>>>though charges were incurred by the woman.
>>>
>>Minor quibble, just to keep the facts straight...
>>Kevin, the OB types I know all have charges which are paid by the
>>pregnant woman as pre-natal care is administered. Even those with
>>insurance have deductables, co-payments etc. So there most certainly
>>*is* formal billing of pregnancy costs before any child is born.
>
>What you contributed, Mark, while perhaps true, is irrelevant to the issue at
>hand.

Actually, what Mark described is *exactly* what I've been talking about.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: geoqwang@brahms.udel.edu (Qinxian Wang)
Subject: a question to married women
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 17:30:02 GMT

I recently read some books and maganizes about the differences between men
and women, and I am amazed by the different ways of thinking for men and
women.  It seems to me that men in general don't know women, even they live
together because of the fundamental difference - women feel and men don't,
as I understand.

I am just curious, does your husband know you? 
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Doin' the right thing in Canada - NOT!  (Yet Again...)
X-To: STEWART SCHULTZ
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 23:03:00 GMT

schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz) writes...
SS> [From the CBC last night]
SS> An Ottawa golden oldies radio station, CFRA, banned the John Lennon
SS> song 'Run For Your Life' from its playlist yesterday after complaints
SS> by feminist groups and women's shelters that the song "promotes
SS> violence against women."  The phrase found particularly objectionable
SS> was "I'd rather see you dead, little girl, than to be with another
SS> man."  This was seen as both degrading to women and promoting of
SS> violence.


Not that I can't sympathise with their concerns, but are they going to start
calling for the banning of Jimy Hendrix now?  ("Saw my woman with another
man...I shot her down, yeah I shot her down down down")?  Or heck, what
about Meryn Cadell?  ("I'm squishing up my baby bumblebee [a man who has
done her wrong], won't my mamma be so proud of me?")

The question is where to draw the line...  And I have to confess, being a
civil libertarian at heart (and not afraid to admit it!  <-: ), I find
this to be a disturbing precedent.


SS> "I support this decision.  Our freedom of expression has to end when it
SS> endangers or degrades others."
SS>    --Yvonne Rondeau, Ottawa battered women's shelter

Obviously though, she probably doesn't think much of "The freedom of choice
ends when life begins," though, *does* she?  She seems to have a pretty
twisted notion of what rights are more sacred than others, it seems...

Okay, sarcasm off...


Seriously, when I see people advocating limits on freedom of speech, it
*really* scares me, as a Canadian citizen (aye, where our Supreme Court
Justices are beginning to sound more and more like Andrea Dworkin and less
and less like objective judges) and especially as a member of the Men's
Movement, considering that I had a legion of feminist advocates demanding
my censure from newspapers at the Univerity of Toronto last year, because
my articles and flyers were "demeaning to women".

As you can see, I'd rather have people *choose for themselves* what to see
and what to listen to, rather than allow someone else to decide what we
should and should not be *ALLOWED* to see.

---
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
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * All the cool rats drink beer.
From: lmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Laurie Mann)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Date: 21 Dec 1992 13:33:48 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
Reply-To: lmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: ansible.pubs.stratus.com

Diane writes
>sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>>The only reason that feminism has gotten as far as it has is because it
>>has been able to badger its critics into stunned silence. We must be
>>silent no more.
>Yes! As a matter of fact, the very *first* thing I noticed about you
>was your stunned silence. Get real.  Are there any other conspiracy
>theories you wish to discuss? What about aliens, Elvis? If you waive
>skepticism for your own brand of Manly PC, can you really call yourself
>a skeptic? or is this why you're the *past* president?

Oh, is Robert still here?  Gee, kill files can make for a more pleasant
USENET!

I remember how Robert used to hit abuse survivors.  In my case, I don't care  
because I have a strong enough ego that his brand of slime didn't bother me.
But I was extremely amused recently to read a letter to Boston Globe Magazine  
by a person who signed himself as a capital "s" Skeptic.  The letter was in  
response to an article on people who claim alien abductions because they  
remember being taken places in the middle of the night and being hurt by  
people.  This particular skeptic said he believed the people WERE remembering  
trauma, but that he believed they were remembering repressed sexual/physical  
abuse and couldn't believe that someone close to them could have hurt them that  
way.  Remembering Robert's brand of "skepticism," I guess it's a sign of how  
many "skeptics" he really represents.

I suppose some feminists DO badger others into stunned silence.  Better than  
the way those "manly men" badger others---they beat them or kill them.

*  In Germany they first came for the Communists, and I didn't speak *
*  because I wasn't a Communist.  Then they came for the Jews, and I *
*  didn't speak because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade *
* unionists, and I didn't speak because I wasn't a trade unionist... *
*Then they came for me--and by that time no one was left to speak up.*
*  Rev. Martin Niemoeller     [Why to March on Washington in April]  *
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: krw@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (keith.r.smith)
Subject: Re: thermal underpants
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 18:59:32 GMT

In article <celeste-221292114453@128.158.16.248> celeste%express@freedom.msfc.nasa.gov (Celeste) writes:
>In article <168C4E567.SURGDM@mizzou1.missouri.edu>, Diane wrote:
>> 
>> In article <1992Dec21.202818.18401@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>
>> krw@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (keith.r.smith) writes:
>>  
>>     <stuff deleted>
>>  
>> >I compares the "specs" on a number of differrent brands, with their
>> >own separate sizing schemes, and determined that a women's small should
>> >fit me properly.  I opened a package.  The legs looked long enough,
>> >(I stand 5'11") they looked about big enough around in the thighs and
>> >in the hips, and the waistband looked just-right!  The only thing missing
>> >
>>       <more stuff deleted>
>>  
>> >I can't help but think that _one day_ the folx who make athletic gear
>> >(you know, those garments that _have to_ fit men/women of athletic
>> >proportions), would get together with the folx that make thermal undies,
>> >and a KILLING would be made!
>> >
>> >What do ya' think, folx?
>> >
>> >Keith R
>>  
>> Well Keith, I think you did a very nice job of explaining the women's
>> undies in your sock drawer. *Now* how are you going to explain the
>> bra and fishnet hose in the box at the bottom of your closet???
>> ;-)
>>  
>> Diane
>
>Why fight it!
>
>He has a "girl's" (woman's) build. I wonder if his
>brain is like wise wired?

Hi Celeste,
You are incorrect on both counts.  I have thick muscular thighs
and a trim, though heavily muscled midsection from all of the
athletic training that I do.  In short, I have an athletic build,
not unlike that of a strong male cyclist.  (I am a strong male cyclist)
There is no mistaking my build for that of a woman, not even from 20 paces.
Apparrently, the folx that make men's thermal underpants must believe
that all men have skinny thighs and thick bellies.  The manufacturers
of _athletic_ gear, as in cycling apparrel, for instance,  happen to know
better.  I also pointed up that the so called "women's thermals", that
happen to be a good fit for an athletic man of small/slim frame, will
_not_ properly fit an athletically built woman of small/slim frame.
I wonder where such women can go to buy _their_ thermal gear, or do
they simply have to put up with thermals that don't fit properly?

Keith R

>
>My sure is. I also have a complete wardrobe to go with it!
>(Which includes my prized Kasper suit (by ALS)!) Some of 
>my women friends loan me some of their clothes and they want
>to borrow mine!
>
>Bye the way Diane, what size do you wear? I am 16'.
>
>Love and hugs,
>
>Celeste
>
Xref: sparky soc.women:21845 soc.men:21706 alt.feminism:6445 talk.abortion:52765
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Muffy becomes anti-choice (absolutely false)
Date: 22 Dec 92 21:58:25
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1992Dec21.190538.1@d0gslb.fnal.gov>
	<MUFFY.92Dec21182007@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<1992Dec23.045347.27287@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com's message of Wed, 23 Dec 1992 04:53:47 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.045347.27287@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
>In article <MUFFY.92Dec21182007@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec21.190538.1@d0gslb.fnal.gov> holzman@d0gslb.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman) writes:
>>
>>>Gee, Muffy, does this mean that you're anti-abortion?
>>
>>Nope.  I consider abortion to be *one way* of "dealing with the
>>consequences."  A perfectly fine way, by the way, but not by any means
>>the only one.  

>Abortion is not perfectly fine, it is NOT something great or glorious.
[more of the same stupid interpretation deleted.]

Actually, "perfectly fine" != "great or glorious."  Come back when you
understand the English language.

Mufy
--

Muffy Barkocy                      | ~Can you tell me how much bleeding/it
muffy@mica.berkeley.edu            |  takes to fill a word with meaning and/
"amorous inclinations"? Aha! I'm   |  how much how much death it takes/to give
not "not straight," I'm *inclined*.|  a slogan breath?~ - Bruce Cockburn
From: dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Date: 21 Dec 92 18:55:51 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: redondo.sw.stratus.com

In article <1h4hg5INNe6u@transfer.stratus.com>, lmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Laurie Mann) writes:
> Dan Swartzendruber writes
> >In article <168C1CB92.SURGDM@mizzou1.missouri.edu>, Diane writes:
> >> dgross@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu (Dave Gross) writes:
> >> 1) Who are the major proponents of circumcision?
> >> - Doctors, the mojority of which are still men.
> >Citations please?  In many cases this is a religious issue.  Oh, I forgot -
> >these are patriarchal religions, so it's a moot point.
> 
> No, Dan, in the vast MINORITY of cases is circumcision done for "religious  
> reasons."  It's still done routinely in many hospitals to boys of many  
> different religions.  Whether a religion is patriarchal or not
> is completely irrelevent to this discussion.

I didn't say (or even imply) that that wasn't the case.  I said "in many
cases".  Many is an absolute term, not a relative term.  And there *are*
many such cases each year.  In any event, this is a pretty minor point anyway.

> >> 2) Who does the majority of bullying in school?
> >> - Boys
> >Who reinforces their socialized roles of toughness? - girls/women
> 
> This is patent bull.  Sure, there are some women who do this, but this happens  
> a whole lot more from stereotypic fathers and coaches.  Most people I hung out  
> with in school hated that kind of behavior.
> 

Well, thank you for validating my personal experiences.  So you are claiming
that it is totally coincidental that the tough guys all had girlfriends and
the guys like me that got beat up on didn't?  Despite the fact that these
girls would treat me (and guys like me) like pond scum?  And yes, most of the
people I hung out with hated that kind of behavior too.  Of course, we weren't
the majority either.  Laurie, I really wish you would be more consistent about
things like this.  A consistent attitude I see from you (and others like you)
is that anecdotal evidence is only valid if it comes from you (or agrees with
your position).

-- 

#include <std_disclaimer.h>

Dan S.
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
From: Diane
Subject: Re: Ecomasculinism and living
Organization: University of Missouri
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 10:37:43 CST

In article <1992Dec21.022449.692@zooid.guild.org>
Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
 
>Well!  What's good for the gander is good for the goose, isn't it?  :-)
>
 
Of course! But watch it Will, you're beginning to sound like a feminist!
;-)
Diane
From: lmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Laurie Mann)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: a question to married women
Date: 23 Dec 1992 17:54:08 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
Reply-To: lmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: ansible.pubs.stratus.com

Qinxian Wang writes
>I recently read some books and maganizes about the differences between men
>and women, and I am amazed by the different ways of thinking for men and
>women.  It seems to me that men in general don't know women, even they live
>together because of the fundamental difference - women feel and men don't,
>as I understand.

I think this is often true, as diatribes...er "dialogues" in this and other
newsgroups frequently attest.  Many men not only feel but understand that
they feel and admit to it.  Many women, in addition to feeling, can think
as well.

>I am just curious, does your husband know you? 

On the whole, yes he does.  And I know him pretty well too.  Neither of
us is psychic, and both have made more than our share of mistakes.  But we
do talk almost everything out.  I think that helps our ability to
understand one another.

Most couples I know who have successfully maintained long-term relationships
seem to have the same capability.

*  In Germany they first came for the Communists, and I didn't speak *
*  because I wasn't a Communist.  Then they came for the Jews, and I *
*  didn't speak because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade *
* unionists, and I didn't speak because I wasn't a trade unionist... *
*Then they came for me--and by that time no one was left to speak up.*
*  Rev. Martin Niemoeller     [Why to March on Washington in April]  *
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism,talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Men's Right to Self-Determination
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 00:13:53 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.002728.11412@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
>In article <1992Dec29.190139.11562@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>In <1992Dec29.031344.19977@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec28.182701.28515@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>>>In <1992Dec24.181349.2692@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>>>In article <1hb1i8INNf40@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Unsupported assertion.  Why?  A woman retains the right NOT to legally
>>>>>>dissolve all ties, but to REMOVE the fetus from her body.
>>>>>
>>>>>However, the EFFECT of a successful abortion is NOT ONLY to remove the
>>>>>biological dependency, but to also remove the associated financial obligation
>>>>>as well. If we parallel the latter, and it would result in more equity.
>
>OK. ONCE AGAIN, SHOUTING!
>
>I SUPPORT THE RIGHT OF ALL MEN TO HAVE UNWANTED PREGNANCIES AND ABORTIONS.

Do you support the right of any and all men to sever their financial 
obligations wrt their (potential) genetic child, during the same time that 
abortion is legal for the woman?

								- Kevin