HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Choosing Dangerous Relationships (was: How to Protect Women)
Date: 6 Jan 93 10:26:42
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<MUFFY.93Jan5124307@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<jay.32.726337989@UUSERV.CC.UTAH.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: jay@UUSERV.CC.UTAH.EDU's message of Wed, 6 Jan 1993 16:33:09 GMT

In article <jay.32.726337989@UUSERV.CC.UTAH.EDU> jay@UUSERV.CC.UTAH.EDU (Jay Deuel) writes:
>>> Or is it that you can't tell who's interested in you, in any way?
>>> Or do you just feel that any man would be glad to get sexual
>>> advances from any woman?
>>
>>Of course not, Lenore!  That should be "any woman except lesbians and
>>feminists (which are the same thing, anyway)."  *grin*
>>
>Wrong Muffy, I think any man would appriciate sexual advances from any woman 
>who would be willing to follow through (no teasing please)!  ;-)
 
You must be new here...*smile*.  You see, it's already been revealed to
us that lesbians and feminists are the cause of women not being able to
have orgasms through intercourse.  Naturally, any self-respecting man
would not want to be approached by a woman who would then destroy his
self-image by not being sufficiently stimulated by his "tool of
manhood."

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                      | ~Never had a lot of faith in human beings/
muffy@mica.berkeley.edu            |  but sometimes we manage to shine/like a
"amorous inclinations"? Aha! I'm   |  light on a hill beaming out to space/from
not "not straight," I'm *inclined*.|  somewhere hard to find~ - Bruce Cockburn
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: jay@UUSERV.CC.UTAH.EDU (Jay Deuel)
Subject: Re: Choosing Dangerous Relationships (was: How to Protect Women)
Organization: University of Utah Computer Center
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 05:18:12 GMT

>>>> Or do you just feel that any man would be glad to get sexual
>>>> advances from any woman?
>>>>
>>>Of course not, Lenore!  That should be "any woman except lesbians and
>>>feminists (which are the same thing, anyway)."  *grin*
>>>
>>Wrong Muffy, I think any man would appriciate sexual advances from any woman 
>>who would be willing to follow through (no teasing please)!  ;-)
>>
>I disagree.  For every man there must be *some* woman he wouldn't want to bed
>with.
>
Your point is a valid one, I know women I wouldn't want to [go] to bed with, 
but I think you're putting words in my mouth.  I only said any man would
appriciate sexual advances from any women, NOT that they wanted to go to bed 
with all of them.  I think it's a great compliment, or "warm fuzzy".  This 
of course assumes men have the right to turn down a sexual advance!

Look above and notice I was responding to the idea that men would be glad to 
get sexual advances from all women, except lesbians and feminists.  Don't 
all [straight & bi] men like to know they are attractive sexually, even to 
women who they don't want to go to bed with?  I'm sure this is true for 
married men, and I wonder if it's not true for gay men as well.

P.S. Did you miss the *grin* & ;-) above?  Admissions of sarcasm!
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:6966 alt.activism:20235 talk.rape:3025
From: jay@UUSERV.CC.UTAH.EDU (Jay Deuel)
Subject: Re: Choosing Dangerous Relationships (was: How to Protect Women)
Organization: University of Utah Computer Center
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 19:34:09 GMT

In article <MUFFY.93Jan6102642@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>>> Or is it that you can't tell who's interested in you, in any way?
>>>> Or do you just feel that any man would be glad to get sexual
>>>> advances from any woman?
>>>
>>>Of course not, Lenore!  That should be "any woman except lesbians and
>>>feminists (which are the same thing, anyway)."  *grin*
>>>
>>Wrong Muffy, I think any man would appriciate sexual advances from any woman 
>>who would be willing to follow through (no teasing please)!  ;-)
> 
>You must be new here...*smile*.  You see, it's already been revealed to
>us that lesbians and feminists are the cause of women not being able to
>have orgasms through intercourse.  Naturally, any self-respecting man
>would not want to be approached by a woman who would then destroy his
>self-image by not being sufficiently stimulated by his "tool of
>manhood."
>
I repent!  I forgot the "revelation", which is a true sin in Utah.  I guess 
I was just thinking in terms of how nice it would be to receive an 
invitation to Clinton's inaguration, even though I voted for Perot.  :-)

I should note that in my first reply I assumed men who are attracted to 
women, and they should have the right to turn down the offer.  It's nice to 
receive a menu, even though one may choose to eat at a different diner.
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:6813 soc.men:22143 soc.women:22141
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: Feminism's Lesbian Leaders (was: Why are there only men on)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 18:49:34 GMT

In article <MUFFY.93Jan8145304@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.185322.14911@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:  
>
>>Which statement STILL contains the implication, "het women spend more
>>time around men than we do, THEREFORE they must hate them even more
>>than us!"
>
>No, the implication is that they have more *opportunity* to find reasons
>to hate men.

 So, Muffy the Impartial Moderator accepts that premise as well: "Het
 women hate men more than lesbians do, because they're forced to spend
 more time in mens' disgusting presence!"

 It couldn't POSSIBLY be: "Spending more time around men, het women
 have more *opportunity* to see mens' good side. They see mens' fundamental 
 human goodness and generosity, and hence become *quite* fond of them!"

 No, this could NOT possibly be the case, not to the denizens of fem-lib land,
 because men HAVE NO good side. Hence the only possible outcome for women
 forced to spend time around men is to intensify their hatred of men. In 
 this premise, we see the feminist hatred of the male sex undisguised.

>I assure you, Robert, neither I nor any feminist I know has any desire
>to fuck you (using a purchased tool o' manhood, of course).  Even if it
>*would* improve your personality.

 So, I see you feminists DO make it a practice to fuck men over - it's just
 that I'm not your type!

 Oh, Muffy dear, the feeling is mutual. I don't need you, and I
 don't need any feminist, at least not of the kind *you* probably
 know. I wouldn't even WANT your kind of woman - she'd just hiss and
 snarl at her man, no matter HOW hard he tried to please her. (Hint:
 I've BEEN down that pathetic road before. I've learned my lesson.
 NO amount of sucking up to a feminist will disarm her hostility.
 Rather, weakness in the face of hostility merely increases it.)

 Don't worry, I'm not exactly *lacking* for suitable female companionship! 
 Not since I wised up. There are still plenty of women left in this world who
 understand and appreciate "la difference," whose fundamental
 identity and human virtue has not been despoiled by the kind
 of venomous *ressentiment* that you and your pals are attempting
 to spread. 

-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!


     "Mystical explanations are considered deep. The truth is that
      they are not even superficial."

                   - Friedrich Nietzsche    (The Gay Science: 126)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: SURGDM@mizzou1.missouri.edu (Diane)
Subject: Re: If it's good for the goose..  was (Re: Back Again To (Un)Father - NOT!)
Organization: University of Missouri
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 93 08:36:29 CST

In article <1993Jan5.200808.14645@netcom.com>
payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
 
>In article <168CEB513.SURGDM@mizzou1.missouri.edu> news@mont.cs.missouri.edu writes:
>>You know, I'm a custodial parent. I'm getting the uncomfortable feeling
>>that a lot of people think that raising a child (or two) alone is a piece
>>of cake compared to writing out a support check once a month.
 
>You ignore the 80 hours (whatever) of work required to earn the money
>which which to write the check. That is, neither is a "piece of cake".
 
Are you assuming that most custodial parents *don't* work outside the
house, that they *don't* (like me) also spend a huge percentage of their
paychecks on the children? Where are you getting this idea?
 
>
>Why trivialize either?
 
I didn't. I'm objecting to what I saw as the vilification of (female)
custodial parents.
 
>>                                              It would be pretty ridiculous
>>to have the parent who makes the least money (and often spends the most time
>>with the child) pay a higher % of his/her income than the wealthier parent.
 
>As I understand it, very few women, no matter how wealthy, pay any alimony
>or child support if not the CP. I caught the tail end of Ophrah (sp?) last
>night and the topic was alimony and child support. One of the women owned
>a company and was ordered to pay for 2 years, she had not paid a cent, and
>the courts did not attach her wages. It seems that in the same fashion
>as 'a women cannot be sexist', we have the situatioon where there is and
>cannot be such a thing as a 'deadbeat-mom'. If she does not pay, no big
>deal, get a job. If he does not pay, things change radically, and not for
>the better.
 
Your dragging in arguments from all over the board here. I don't receive
or pay alimony, so I know very little about it. About 75% of my income
goes to feed, shelter and clothe my children; as well as about 100% of my
'free' non-working, non-sleeping hours. Their father spends about 1/12 of
his income to support them and refers to (reasonable notification) time with
the kids as 'babysitting'.
Not all NCP's are deadbeats (male or female). Not all CPs are stay-at-home
parents who live off the other parent's paycheck. I am not trivializing
anything here. I am objecting to the ridiculous stereotyping of female CPs
as parasitic bitches from hell. There are always those who will take
advantage of the system, any system, but these people are not to be confused
with the larger percentage of people who behave ethically and with integrity.
Examples that *some* abuse is occurring is not evidence that it is the norm.
 
Diane
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Feminism is a RELIGION! (eureka!)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 20:57:50 GMT

In article <2371@newsserver.cs.uwindsor.ca> bouche2@server.uwindsor.ca (BOUCHER DAVID            ) writes:
>In article <1993Jan6.172609.28106@news.columbia.edu> rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:
>> [...]  I believe that there is no inherent intellectual difference between
>>the sexes. Do you believe otherwise?
>
>Ah, but do you believe there is any intellectual difference between the sexes
>that is NOT inherent?  
>
>It seems obvious that there are many differences between the sexes in ways of
>thinking and behavior.  The only question is to what extent those differences
>are learned, and to what extent are they "inherent".  The "feminist" position,
>as you have outlined it, is that whatever observable differences there may be
>are 100% learned behaviors, with zero percent "inherency".

I believe that there are indeed some well documented differences which would
cause inherent differenced.

A few examples. Firstly, girls mature at a different rate than boys. I think
many do not appreciate the significance of this. Throughout their growing
years, boys and girls will see things differently. How differently, I
suspect that this is pretty variable, but the effects will be cumulative, 
and as far as I can tell, permanant.

And there are actual differnece in the brains as well. The corpus callosum (sp?)
is more active in women, and there is more inter-hemisphere communication.
This and other brain differences (most hormonally induces) would seem to be
innate. These are not trivial differences, and it is difficult for me to imagine
that they could cause no behavioral or perceptual differences, or be caused
strictly by social indoctrination.
 
>Now, if a particular difference persists in a myriad of diverse cultures over
>a very long period of time (say, 6,000 years), that is pretty good evidence
>that the difference is inherent to SOME extent.
>  
>(Note that i said "evidence", not "proof"... it is just about impossible to
>"prove" anything with respect to human behavior.)
> 
>But what evidence is there that there are NO inherent mental differences?

There seems to be plenty of evidence here. Women generally have better
language skills and men usually have better spacial perception.

>If even ONE inherent difference can be found, no matter how small, then that
>proposition must be wrong... but on the other hand, since any inherent 
>difference that one might posit can be "explained away", then the proposition
>is unfalsifiable.  It becomes a matter of faith.
>
>"Feminism" is not a set of logical postulates that can be debated, analyzed,
>and resolved.  It's a religion, pure and simple.   
> 
>   
>- db
>
>PS. Would it be too inflammatory to suggest that pro-feminist legislation 
>might be unconstitutional on first amendment grounds... "separation of
>church and state"?   ;)

I'd be carefull here, feminists have been known to complain that men tend
to "hide behind the first amendment". Think about this..


Rich

payner@netcom.com
From: passaret@vane.med.ge.com ("Mr. Mike" Passaretti)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Men's Responsibilities VS. Women's
Date: 10 Jan 93 20:00:43 GMT
Reply-To: Mike Passaretti <passaretti@crd.ge.com>
Organization: GE Medical Systems, Milwaukee WI


# In article <PASSARET.93Jan8192550@vane.med.ge.com>, 
# passaret@vane.med.ge.com (Hey, that's me!) wrote:

# In message <FD2XwB3w165w@qed.cts.com>, 
# kisses@qed.cts.com (Kisses) writes:

[...]
kisses>     First of all, you cannot even BEGIN to compare
kisses> the emotional and often physical trauma of having an
kisses> abortion to being stuck with a couple bills for a
kisses> measly 20 years or so.  For most women, abortion isn't
kisses> some toss of the coin decision.  It is a grueling
kisses> battle between themselves, their conscience, their God
kisses> if they have one, and so on.  For many of the women
kisses> who choose to have abortions, that memory is fixated
kisses> in their mind for far beyong some 20 years .. but
kisses> through to the end of their lives.  And it is more
kisses> than just a little damage to the pocketbook, it is
kisses> sometimes guilt, regret, or even a curiosity of what
kisses> might have been but was not.

mm> 2a) Claim that all women who have abortions are
mm> psychologically obsessed by the event.  Be prepared to
mm> recant this if the pro-lifers call you on it...  

As a private E-Mail note pointed out, I expanded the scope of
coverage of the first sentence above to cover the remainder of
the paragraph.  I was perhaps swayed by previous posts on the
subject and read something which was not present.  Apologies.
I usually try to keep my sarcasm at least mostly on target...
Please alter my comment to read "Claim that many....".  

We now return you to the regularly scheduled pointless
bickering with occasional flashes of insight and brilliance.
None of which, alas, have been mine of late....

 						-MM
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine)
Subject: Re: Choosing Dangerous Relationships (was: How to Protect Women)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 18:06:14 GMT

sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:

>In article <C06rFH.FFz@news.cso.uiuc.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:

>>But other women see good as powerful -- not only consciously,
>>but subconsciously. I know I'm one of them; and for that reason
>>I often find kind and ethical behavior a turnon. I remember a
>>few years ago a male coworker showed himself to be unexpectedly
>>kind and perceptive. I had a dream that night, that I was
>>going to bed with him; and in the morning I found I was
>>thinking about him sexually although I never had before. Well,
>>I prayed for the thoughts to go away, because I knew he
>>wasn't attracted to me and I wasn't, really, attracted to
>>him. And in a few days the thoughts did, indeed, disappear. But that
>>passing incident taught me a lot about my own psychology.

>Yes. In other words, for a short time, you had an erotic dream about
>a "nice guy." But then you came back to your normal self, and lost
>interest in him. Presumably you didn't tell him how you felt about
>him; perhaps this might have changed how the two of you feel.
>A lot of good all this nicety-niceness did HIM; all it
>got him was an erotic dream in somebody else's head. It still didn't
>get him a girlfriend. If it did, we'd start to see a lot more of it.
>But since it doesn't, it's behavior men are going to have to 
>start unlearning.

>        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com

Something occurred to me, when I read this posting a second time.

Notice how, in my description of this situation, I said I knew
the guy wasn't attracted to me. And here you seem to be
saying that I should have "told him how (I) felt about him."

Well, Sheaffer, do you usually express sexual feelings to people
at work who are not interested in you? And can't get away from you?
Is that the way you behave? 

I know that's not sexual harassment, but isn't it pretty rude?

Or is it that you can't tell who's interested in you, in any way?
Or do you just feel that any man would be glad to get sexual
advances from any woman?

Enquiring minds want to know...

Lenore Levine
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Men's Responsibilities VS. Women's
From: kisses@qed.cts.com (Kisses)
Date: 6 Jan 93 07:01:38 GMT
Organization: The QED BBS, Lakewood CA


        Some jokester by name of "Will Steeves" was silly enough to say: 
"to take a short, one-time $300-$500 trip to a clinic to dispose of one's 
parental responsibilities before the fact ... hardly compares to an 18-24 
year "consequence" of $250,000 or more!"

        First of all, you cannot even BEGIN to compare the emotional and 
often physical trauma of having an abortion to being stuck with a couple 
bills for a measly 20 years or so.  For most women, abortion isn't some 
toss of the coin decision.  It is a grueling battle between themselves, 
their conscience, their God if they have one, and so on.  For many of the 
women who choose to have abortions, that memory is fixated in their mind 
for far beyong some 20 years .. but through to the end of their lives.  
And it is more than just a little damage to the pocketbook, it is 
sometimes guilt, regret, or even a curiosity of what might have been but 
was not.

        If you play your cards right, you can get back your pocket 
change.  But once you make a DECISION that consequence is *there* for you 
to face, and you can't go back in time to erase it.  

        If a MAN does not want to be "stuck with the bill" because of 
some unprotected sex, then he should take the means to protect himself.  
Likewise, if a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, she better protect 
herself as well.
        Anyone who does not take precaution when they know quite well 
what could easily happen, deserves their fate.  IGNORANCE is one thing .. 
STUPIDITY is quite another.

        And if you are naive enough, "Will", to think that it is the 
woman's responsibility to take care of the birth control, then get out 
your checkbook!!  What's that old saying?  "A fool and his money will 
soon be parted."

Kisses!!
:*

------------------------------
kisses@qed.cts.com (Kisses)  or  qed!kisses
The QED BBS -- (310)420-9327
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine)
Subject: Re: Feminism's Lesbian Leaders
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 16:06:33 GMT

lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

(Various neat stuff.)

>	There aren't too many women who throw away satisfying careers
>just to be housewives in this day and age. Even right-wing women like
>Phyllis Schlafly and Marilyn Quayle and Connaught Marshner and Beverly
>LaHaye don't do that (The latter two are discussed in gory detail by
>Susan Faludi in _Backlash_, and the sight of two career women
>professing to reject female careerism certainly has excellent
>entertainment value, if nothing else).

>-- 
>/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
>/lip@s1.gov

Loren, I enjoyed reading your thoughtful and intelligent posting.

I would just like to make one point. That there *are* women
who choose to leave the business world -- not to be a courtesan,
not fake orgasm, not to obsess on getting the sheets whiter
than white -- but to be the primary caregiver of small children.

I have a friend who is the primary caregiver of one small child 
and has another on the way. I would certainly see this woman
as a feminist; I think she made a reasonable choice, given
her options. I do not think she is presenting her husband with
any sort of fake personality (or faking orgasm, for that matter).

She is a very bright woman but was not able to find a career that
was really right for her. I think that she would like to get involved
in community activities, on a part time basis, and will do so
when her energy level permits. And she *does* have the kind of
job skills that would enable her to support her family if her
husband were no longer present. 

I know I find the company of small children more entertaining than
that of backstabbers in business suits. I deeply regret that at
43 it will probably not be possible for me to have one of my own.

I also think that many women in the business world play the
courtesan role much more than my friend does. How many jobs
out there for women are really about being cute and smiley? (E.g.,
female newscasters, personnel officers, etc.)

Well, keep on writing. This is just a minor point; and I really
enjoy your postings.

Lenore Levine
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women