HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mcole@sub-40 (Mary Cole)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: domestic violence & the super bowl
Date: 25 Jan 93 23:05:56 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

Here's a message I received today. Please add your support to it and help  
others:


|>From POMONA.CLAREMONT.EDU!JRYCENGA Wed Jan 20 11:52:44 1993
|
|For political activists, or media watchdogs, or just concerned
|women, here's a quick something you can do to help prevent
|and stop domestic violence.
|
|Super Bowl Sunday - which this year is January 31, here in southern
|California at the Rose Bowl in Pasadena - is the single worst day
|for domestic violence in the USA.  There is an increase of as much as 40%  
in the volume handled by domestic violence shelters on this
|day.
|
|To try to stem this tide of violence, the Women's Action Coalition
(WAC) of Los Angeles is supporting the campaign by Fairness and Accuracy  
in Reporting (FAIR) to convince NBC (the network carrying the game) to  
carry two Public Service Announcements on domestic violence during the  
Super Bowl this year.  Anna Quindlen of the New York Times wrote a fine  
editorial in the 1/17/93 edition of the Times supporting this effort as  
well.
|
|What I am asking of you - and all your friends (please PLEASE
cross-post this to _any_ lists you can think of) - is to help us with a  
FAX/LETTER blitz on NBC, asking for these PSA's.  Here is a sample letter:
|
|Dick Ebersol
|President, NBC Sports
|NBC
|30 Rockefeller Plaza
|New York, NY  10112
|
|Dear Mr. Ebersol:
|
|We (I) support FAIR's request that you air two Public Service
Announcements on domestic violence during the Super Bowl game.  The Super  
Bowl is one of the most widely viewed television events of the year; it is  
also the day, according to women's shelters, when calls for help increase  
by as much as 40%.
|
|Your broadcast of the Super Bowl will reach a huge audience.  By your  
airing PSAs, NBC will be bringing to a national audience the critical and  
important issue of domestic violence.
|
|Sincerely,
|
|
|   You can rephrase or rewrite this letter to your liking, but please FAX  
or write them immediately.
|
|To reach NBC by FAX:  212-664-5835.
|
|   Thanks for helping - you may save someone's life, or skeletal
structure, or eyesight.
|
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Thoughts on Sexual Harassment
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1993 18:02:16 GMT

In article <C15uqF.IK5@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
)In article <1993Jan20.025517.23620@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
)>In article <C0t5uC.EL4@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
)>>   When I was a kid, about that age, (~1963) there were also boys
)>>   who did these things.  Of course, on a bus there isn't much privacy
)>>   so they were exposing themselves at large, not just to the girls.
)>>   Some of them had recently learned how to "operate" their "equipment"
)>>   and would put on shows.   As I recall these guys were among the
)>>   more troubled (or troublesome) ones, but I recall the reaction
)>>   by the rest of us to be a mixture of amazement, disgust, and 
)>>   curiosity.   It's not clear that it represented a form of harassment
)>>   or was in some way threatening.
)>
)>At what point does it become harassment in your mind?  If the boy were
)>to expose himself and then say to the nearest girl, "I'd like to fuck
)>you," is this alright?  Is it okay if only a few "troubled" boys do
)>it, but not nearly every boy?  
)
)  I guess I think the line is crossed when there is a credible
)  threat to someone.  If there is a threat of actual physical
)  assault I would up the ante, authority-wise.

Interesting.  I'd say that there already were laws and practices against
exposing oneself in public to any one of any gender,  and that these have
been enforced in the past without labelling the practice 'sexual harassment'.

To go back to your earlier example, do you think that adults would have put
a stop to those boys who exposed themselves to other boys (or anybody else)
if they knew it was happening?   I do.  I think they still would.

I think that calling exposure like this 'sexual harssment' is very
misleading and ascribes implicitly motivation to the children that they don't
have (most likely).  I hope people wake up to this before it's too late.  If
they don't, it will in the longer term be self-correcting, IMO.  The 'magic'
in the words of 'sexual harassment' will tend to go away as people get a
more accurate impression of the range of behavior that it describes by
personal experience.  Which seems likely to me if it is taught to them
from school-age on.

Newsgroups: soc.women
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: THE DIVINE MASTERS
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 20:09:53 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.194716.3336@cnsvax.uwec.edu> mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
)
)
)     The "ECKANKAR" Organization, referred to in the following article, is
)PRO-CHOICE on the abortion issue:
)          
)
)                             THE DIVINE MASTERS       

Yeah - but how many 'Dive Masters' are *women* ("Divine Mistresses?")?

This is, after all, soc.women (and not sci.physics, where a remarkably
similar post by you also appeared), so you ought to work the word 'woman'
into the post *somewhere*.  Abortion is relevant to talk.abortion,
not soc.women....

:-) (??)

Xref: sparky soc.women:23169 alt.feminism:7715 soc.men:23421
From: falcao@felix.metaphor.com (Ronnie Falcao)
Newsgroups: soc.women,sci.skeptic,alt.sexual.abuse.recovery
Subject: Re: "Satanic Ritual Abuse" in the media
Date: 22 Jan 93 05:15:42 GMT
Followup-To: soc.women
Distribution: world,local
Organization: Metaphor Computer Systems, Mountain View, CA

In article <9JAN199319341364@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
>How many women of child-bearing age are members of these cults?  How many
>of them are pregnant at any one time?  How many children do each of them
>have?  Answer these questions, and see if you still think that "2.74/day
>doesn't seem like an overly high number to me."
>
>Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU

I have no idea whether or not the stated number is accurate,
but if I were trying to get my hands on babies, no questions
asked, I know how I'd do it.  I'd set up a Crisis Pregnancy
Center in an area with a lot of teen pregnancies.  I just
looked in my phone book, and there are two clinics listed.
Do they each get one client a day who wants to offer their
baby for adoption?  How accurately are records kept for
adoptions across state lines?  What are the opportunities
for babies to "disappear"?

Brokering babies for ritual abuse would explain why some
anti-choice activists seem so much more interested in
a baby's being born than in the baby's growing up
happy and healthy.

I don't know if it happens, but I think it's possible.

	- Ronnie

falcao@metaphor.com
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Ecomasculinism and li
X-To: AARON.L.HOFFMEYER
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 03:26:00 GMT

noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes...
>In article <168C4957B.SURGDM@mizzou1.missouri.edu> Diane writes:
>>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!

>I disagree.  Will "sounds" to me like an "Equalist."  He professes
>equality and its virtues.  He is not against anyone because of their
>gender.  He is not looking for special protection or opportunities
>because of his gender.

>Some women who assert that they are feminists sound a lot like
>equalists to me.  Some don't.  But "feminism" is not the measure for
>"equalism," and if you believe so, then I think you are mistaken.
>Feminism is about being pro-women.  Nothing wrong with that.  But, just
>as some "masculinists" are anti-women, some feminists are anti-men.
>And that is problematic.

>No, there is a greater mission than "feminism" or "masculinism."  Some
>want to refer to this greater cause as being pro-human, regardless of
>gender--"humanism."  But that has been around and implies having to read
>Proust, something I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy (OK, OK, it's a
>leaf, but I don't need or want a three page description of it--Look,
>assume that your reader might have seen a frigging leaf before--it's not
>such a leap, take my word for it).  Besides, humanism sounds so, so, so
>BIOLOGICAL.  This is not about biological morals/values/quality.  It is
>about intellectual rights.  Equality is an intellectual right.  It is
>the right, most accurate, most precise term.  Therefore, I choose
>"equalism."                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  ^^^^^^^^^^

Thank you, Aaron.  It is much appreciated.

(BTW, my original post on "Ecomasculinism" was just meant to be taken as
making light humour of certain claims that women are in general more
concerned with the environment than men ; I considered this sort of idea,
though not the post on Ecofeminism itself, mind you, to be yet another
declaration of moral superiority, and naturally, I had a bone to pick
with it...  :-)  My apologies for picking on a perfectly valid event
in order to make my point, however).

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Gravity: It's more than just a fragrance.  It's the LAW!"
   - Will Steeves, President, GOiDS "R" We, Inc.

 * SLMR 2.1a * We pause for station identification...
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: What does "Male-dominated society" mean?
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 03:11:14 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.182152.17316@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
>In article <1993Jan23.201246.9736@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>)And, of course, we haven't touched on your stats which (if I remember
>)correctly) suggest that women are more severely injured by domestic
>)violence and the fact that ~70% of rape victims are women.
>
>The 70% figure isn't mine - I haven't seen any figures I trust on how
>often women and girls  vs men and boys are raped.  Rapes among adult
>non-institutionalized people are almost certainly not as large as 30% men,
>IMO.

Yes, my sentence does seem to imply that the ~70% figure is yours.
That wasn't my intention.  The ~70% was mine, coming from reports that
some rape crisis centers say that 10-20% of their calls are from men
who have been raped and the rates of sexual abuse of boys.

I think that the percentage of male rape victims/survivors is higher
than usually thought, especially when sexual abuse of boys is included.
From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: What does "Male-dominated society" mean?
Date: 24 Jan 93 01:05:21 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

In article <1993Jan23.201246.9736@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:

>And yet we keep seeing posters maintain that there is a
>cultural/societal proscription against violence towards women.  How
>does it work, then, that men and women in fairly equal numbers abuse
>their mates, but there is a proscription in favor of women but not in
>favor of men?

Quite simply and, it seems to me rather obvious.  Men direct most of
their violence against other men.  If one counts all cases the target
of male violence is more likely to be male than female by a ratio of
about 3 to 1.  If one excludes domestic violence then the ratio is
more like 10 to 1.

>By this reasoning, it appears that women are much
>better at controlling their violence than men, since men commit
>violence in spite of a proscription and women commit violence in the
>absence of one.

There are a lot of missing and hidden premises in that sentence.
What is true is that violence outside of domestic settings is almost
exclusively a male activity and is generally targeted against males.
Within domestic settings violence is more nearly egalitarian.  Make
of that what you will.

>This nearly sounds like a moral superiority of women
>that a few feminists suggest.

Indubitably, if one accepts that non-violence is morally superior.
It is well known, for example, that rabbits are morally superior
to wolves.  Ask any rabbit.
-- 
Richard Harter: SMDS Inc.  Net address: rh@smds.com Phone: 508-369-7398 
US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742.    Fax: 508-369-8272
In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism
From: baltman@prodigal.psych.rochester.edu (Brian Altman)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.motss,soc.misc,soc.men,soc.college.grad,soc.college,soc.bi,sci.psychology,rec.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.personals,misc.misc,soc.couples
Subject: Romantic Jealousy Survey
Date: 27 Jan 93 16:49:49 GMT
Followup-To: misc.misc
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Rochester (Rochester, NY)

I am running an experiment titled "Sexual Orientation and other Correlates of
Romantic Jealousy". It consists of around 31 quick "check the box" questions, 2
or 3 write a sentence or two items, and 8 rate "something" on a scale of 1 to
10. I will include a self addressed stamped envelope with the survey. I'd like
to get responses of people from every sexual orientation and age. My only
requirement is that you currently are in a relationship with a "significant
other" in some way for over two weeks.
 
Because my hypothesis is that people of different sexual orientations
experience jealousy differently both quantitatively and quantitatively, I
especially would appreciate responses from homosexuals and bisexuals so that my
results will be statistically significant. Help me to dispell stereotypes and
discover the truth.

This is my second call for subjects. Originally I said that if if there were
not many volunteers I would implement an incentive raffle. The University of
Rochester's Human Subject Committee ruled that I could not have permission to
mail out the surveys if I kept a record of anyone who participates. Thus, it is
impossible to hold such a raffle. :-(
 
All you have to do to volunteer is e-mail me your postal address;
I will acknowledge you within 24 hours for the most part.
 
All volunteers' results and data will be kept strictly confidential.Results
will be posted to misc.misc on May 21, 1993. Thanx.

-Brian
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Subway gropers
Date: 25 Jan 1993 04:47:59 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall) writes:

>In article <1993Jan21.122002.12023@adx.adelphi.edu> lingling@abraxas.adelphi.edu (Lisa Nyman) writes:
[subway groper story deleted]

>I guess I'd try to either move, or move some object
>inbetween us (briefcase or backpack would be nice to have).  Maybe saying
>something loudly wouldn't hurt, either.

>You can check with you hand or look to see what it is touching you.  You can
>use your elbows and knees to keep some space and to keep people from pressing
>against you.

I would probably step (hard) on his instep.

Another thing I've heard suggested:  cough up a large gob of phlem onto him.

-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Impressive amounts of material can be accreted in this manner.
From: zen@death.corp.sun.com (d)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Muffy becomes anti-choice
Date: 25 Jan 93 11:37:10
Organization: savage hackers
NNTP-Posting-Host: death.corp.sun.com
In-reply-to: Will Steeves's message of Thu, 21 Jan 1993 03:31:00 GMT


In article <1993Jan21.121756.7509@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
> >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:
> >>>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.

> Muffy, methinks that you were looking too hard for something to hurl
> at Aaron.  I do not really believe that he was implying that "perfectly
> fine" means "great" or "glorious," and I would think it to be stretching
> to attempt to claim that he did.

  He implied that muffy was saying that abortion was a great or glorious
option, since no one else said anything positive about it in the thread,
he quoted muffy as saying that it was a reasonable alternative, and then
he came back saying that it wasn't great or glorious.  If he was
interjecting his personal opinion there, and not interpreting what she
had to say, he should make it clear.

  Abortion *is* a perfectly fine way of dealing with an unwanted
pregnancy, perhaps even "great", if you're desparate, but I don't think
that many would call it "glorious."

 -- d
From: karen@asis.unimelb.edu.au (Karen Cook)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Subway gropers
Date: 26 Jan 1993 02:53:47 GMT
Organization: University of Melbourne
NNTP-Posting-Host: mulgulgum.asis.unimelb.edu.au

kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall) writes:

>In article <1993Jan21.122002.12023@adx.adelphi.edu> lingling@abraxas.adelphi.edu (Lisa Nyman) writes:
>> [ story of subway groper deleted]
>>she said *loudly* to the woman something to the effect of - Watch out
>>for the guy behind you, he's probably been feeling your rear like he'd
>>been doing to mine.  So, the question is, what would some of you have done
>>at the moment you realized there was no gym bag.  My sister was stunned
>>because after 7 years of living in NYC, this was the first time
>>something like this happened.  

>I think what she did in regards to the other woman was fine.  If I thought
>someone was touching me, I guess I'd try to either move, or move some object
>inbetween us (briefcase or backpack would be nice to have).  Maybe saying
>something loudly wouldn't hurt, either.

I missed the beginning of this thread, so I hope I'm not repeating what's
already been said by others.

I know what action I would take in that situation. But I live in Melbourne,
Australia, not New York, and it may be that what is a sensible reaction 
when you are being groped on a Melbourne train is a dangerous reaction in
New York - perhaps provoking the groper to violence. You have to decide
what's safe and appropriate for the situation in which you find yourself.

I would draw attention to the groper - loudly, clearly, and without a
trace of embarrassment. Examples:

If his hand is on your backside, grab his wrist, raise it in the air,
and yell "Whose is this? I found it on my ass!"

Or "Would everyone mind keeping a close eye on this person for me? I'm 
going to get off at the next station and inform the police that he's 
been groping me!"

If he's masturbating in public: "Look at that man over there! He's playing
with his willy! If he doesn't stop *immediately* I will be calling the
police!"

These gropers tend to act furtively, preying on one woman at a time. They
often get away with it because they rely on the embarrassment that many 
women feel about drawing attention to themselves in public. Here in 
Australia, young schoolgirls are a favourite target; they are almost 
always too scared and ashamed to do anything. We need to teach them not
to be embarrassed about it; if someone is touching you in a way you don't
want to be touched, that is assault and you are allowed to protest about it,
even if it's happening in a public place.

Karen
--
Karen Cook    (karen@asis.unimelb.edu.au)
ASIS, University of Melbourne
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: What does "Male-dominated society" mean?
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 12:07:10 GMT

In article <C14IJy.5IB@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

)           Moreover there's not a society on earth
)  where the vast majority of violent crimes aren't
)  committed  by males.   

Could be true, though one wonders how one gets data on all societies
on earth to really prove this.

Regardless, an American female is probably still more likely to commit
a violent crime, according to the statistics, than a Japaneese male.
[I can probably dig up the data for murder, at least, if anyone is
interested - the generalization to all violent crime is slighltly more
suspect.]
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: No Subject
From: <RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Saturday, 23 Jan 1993 14:40:38 EST
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center


From: an4835@anon.penet.fi

-Pls note that this is not an indictment of my spouse but basically a cry for
-help so that I can deal with this and steer our relationshipto a healthier
-base. Indeed, the fault lies mainly with me that I am and have been somewhat
-meek, timid and overly afraid of displeasing her at any cost. I am thru this
-forum inviting assistance that will help me to be less afraid of being honest.
-
.... rest deleted ....

   I suspect that many people reading this post are going to say "what a
wimp".  Others (women) may say, noticing your enormous patience,  "can I
PLEASE be your wife?".  If what you say is true, then your wife is incredibly
immature, to the point of neurosis.

   Either she needs a good psychiatrist or YOU need a good lawyer.
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: What does "Male-dominated society" mean?
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 22:38:20 GMT

In article <3g9sXB2w165w@naswtx.UUCP> kelley@naswtx.UUCP (Kelley Smith) writes:
)I write:
)> Regardless, an American female is probably still more likely to commit
)> a violent crime, according to the statistics, than a Japaneese male.
)> [I can probably dig up the data for murder, at least, if anyone is
)> interested - the generalization to all violent crime is slighltly more
)> suspect.]
)
)  
)I would also think an American male would qualify also.  It's probably 
)not a good idea to compare Americans with Japanese but Ameicans males 
)with American females and Japanese males with Japanese females as society 
)largely dictates behavior.  I would venture to say that Japanese males
)commit more violent crimes than Japanese females.  Also, American society 
)is one of the most violent societies around.

One of the points I was trying to make was to demonstrate the importance
of culture to violence.  One hears a lot of 'male-bashing' and naive
Evil Testosterone theories about violence on the net.  I think it is worth
pointing out that cultural differences (eg between America and Japan) can
be more important than biology - as demonstrated by the homicide rates of 
American women vs. Japaneese men.

To whit, the F/M ratio for single-offender single victim homicides in the
US was about .16 in 1989.  The ratio from Japan to US homicides (actual
killings, excluding attempts) is .8 / 7.9  = .10 from 1984 interpol data.

In short, the American woman in America is *at least* 1.6 or so times as
likely to kill you than a Japaneese man in Japan - assuming all murders
in Japan are carried out by men - in a generic statistical sense.

Given that there may be things one can do about culture, and that there is
very little that one can do about biology, to focus on the naive 'Evil Male'
theory of violence is mostly an exercise in sexism, IMO.