HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: Supermodels contribute to spiraling low self esteem?
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1992 05:07:29 GMT

jth4@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JON T. HUTCHINSON) writes:

>I think supermodels are goals most women should stride for.
                                                 ^^^^^^
Taking pledges now for the National Walk for Elle MacPhereson.... :)

rini
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.sex.bondage
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Re: Doing a survey
Followup-To:  alt.sex,soc.singles
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 20:34:56 GMT

mahmed@nyx.cs.du.edu (THE DYER) writes:
] 
] I am conducting a small survey, I you would like to help, please answer
] the following questions:
] 
] NOTICE: I personally guarntee that your e-mail address will not be
] abused by sending you uneeded harrasmenst messages ( you will understand)
] (when you answer the survey, it is of a contarvesial and personal nature)
] 
] QUESTIONs:
] 
]     1) What is your view on sexual bondage?

All bonding Rituals are a Part of the MaleRacistSexist Conspiracy.

Excpet of course the Correct MaleBondingRituals of 
proving who has the bigger penis.

]     2) What do you think about female or male slavery 

This is Clearly Supported by the Bible, and only the
SeXularHumanist conspiracy has Destroyed this Traditonal
Family Value in its war to destroy Moral Purity.

]     3) Have you ever been involved in bondage or sexual slavery

yes, I was married.

]     4) if so, do you have any comments, ideas or regreats
 
yes, Not enough traditional Family Values.

]     5) Just give me some info on you:  Male/Female etcc...

drieux, just drieux

] Thanks 

Pleased to be of assistance.

ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems:
Hickory, Dickory, Dock - Three Mice Ran up a Clock
The Clock Struct one, 
and the Other Two will be Upgraded In the Next Release.
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 14:24:38 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.160234.9244@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> rlt@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (r l taylor) writes:
>In article <BxK49M.1xz@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

>>S/he (r l taylor) wrongly dismissed the question of husbands' liability
>>for wives' pregnancies regardless of genetics, by saying,
>
>>"By all means, any husbands who may be tricked into raising children conceived
>>by another man, take the child in for genetic testing, ..."
>
>Nope, that wasn't me.  Somewhere along the way, the attributions got
>mixed up.


You're right -- I'm sorry, it was me who made the mistake.

If I haven't miscounted the >'s again, it was actually
jrmo@volta.att.com (J.R.Moore) who said it.

Apologies,

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu (Eric Forbis)
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Organization: University of Minnesota
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 02:28:41 GMT

In article <1d74kpINN75e@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>Xref: news.cis.umn.edu soc.women:18405 alt.abortion.inequity:4918 talk.abortion:46054 alt.feminism:3672 soc.men:18432
>Path: news.cis.umn.edu!umn.edu!spool.mu.edu!wupost!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!ames!data.nas.nasa.gov!mustang.mst6.lanl.gov!nntp-server.caltech.edu!peri
>From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
>Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men
>Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
>Date: 4 Nov 1992 00:14:17 GMT
>Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
>Lines: 18
>Distribution: na
>Message-ID: <1d74kpINN75e@gap.caltech.edu>
>References: <1ckmjdINN5cp@gap.caltech.edu> <1992Oct29.150706.26091@ils.nwu.edu> <3RLSB4B2@cc.swarthmore.edu> <1992Nov2.212103.12012@netcom.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>
>
>>There has been no hint of love in anything you have posted. 
>
>>The legislation was for -spousal- notification. And if my wife was pregnant,
>>and it was not my child, I would think that I would have a right to know.
>
>Would you need benefit fom there being a govermnental mandate forcing her
>to tell you?  She's your *wife*, man!  That's supposed to mean that you
>love, honor, cherishm, and communicate.

A father's right to know should not hinge upon the whim of the woman in the 
eyes of the law, despite your attempts to trivialize the father. Question: 
how does one communicate about that which one may not know about? 

You seem to wish the law of the land to uphold a whimsical state of affairs 
where the woman may inform the father (assuming she knows who that is) if 
she "feels" like he's been nice to her. A man's rights should never depend 
on a woman's whim (visa versa); why do feminists desire that it should? Too 
busy putting yourself back on the pedestal?

>
>What?  Oh, you *don't* communicate?  Oh, well, I guess that puts you
>back in category 1 (with the rapists, child molestors, and other 
>miscreants).

Just the guy gets put in this criminal category, eh? Pretty damned sexist, 
sister.
---------

Eric Forbis      forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer)
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Organization: Swarthmore College, PA
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 11:11:14 GMT

In article <forb0004.53.721196294@student.tc.umn.edu> forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu (Eric Forbis) writes:
>In article <8JRSBQFT@cc.swarthmore.edu> auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer) writes:
>[...]
>>No.  There are other cases as well.  For instance, if the father is not the
>>mother's husband, or if the father is incapable of raising the child (a tough
>>call to make, but perhaps plausible in imaginable cases (drug-addiction,
>>extreme youth,...)  If the father has abused the mother.
>
>I may not have worded the above clearly enough: by "recognizing fathers" I 
>wasn't referring to individuals (who may well deserve to rot in prison), but 
>to fathers as a general class. 
>
This is good logic that I am not prepared as yet to argue against.  I will
think more on the issue.
-dave
Xref: sparky soc.women:19271 alt.abortion.inequity:5008 talk.abortion:47591 alt.feminism:4133 soc.men:19037
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Date: 11 Nov 1992 03:25:11 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:

>>(2) get rid of the assumption of the husband's paternity

>This is rather consistant with the idea behind marrige. I think that
>you have misidentified this as a problem. If the husband is not the
>father, then -that- is the problem. 

I beg to differ.  The *problem* is that the man and the woman can't settle
their differences in a civil manner.

							--  Michal

Xref: sparky soc.women:19221 alt.abortion.inequity:4994 talk.abortion:47475 alt.feminism:4095 soc.men:18991
From: charleen@ADS.COM (Charleen Bunjiovianna)
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Organization: The Original Estrogen-Crazed Lust Bunnies
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 01:26:19 GMT

In article <1dca07INNgcj@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>
>>1.  The father denies fatherhood and demands a paternity test.
>>If it's negative, he "wins."  If it's positive, he will have
>>severely reduced his chances for custody.  ("If you doubt your
>>child is yours *and* you want to escape your responsibilities,
>>then how can I expect you to be a good parent?" asks the judge.)
>
>
>I jsut don't understand this.  Do youmean that your love for the
>child is conditional on whether its DNA matches yours?

I don't understand this either.  Do you mean you won't mind if the
nurses switch babies on you in the hospital after you've given birth?

My, what a sanguine attitude.  

Charleen

--
If you work on a lobster boat, sneaking up behind people and pinching them is
probably a joke that gets old real fast.
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: purdon@cons1.mit.edu (James Purdon)
Subject: Re: Was Clinton's victory America's message to the Anti-Choice?
Organization: .
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 15:30:29 GMT

In article <92317.004316KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu (Kurt Ludwick) writes:
>In article <1992Nov9.160245.8890@athena.mit.edu>, purdon@cons1.mit.edu (James
>Purdon) says:
>
>>>You were watching a different election.  The issue of abortion was virtually
>>>-never- addressed, by either sides.  It was never mentioned in the vice-pre-
>>>sidential debates. And I never saw representatives of NOW or Planned Parent-
>
>I meant 'only addressed in the V.P. debates.  Typo, sorry.

Of course, the presidential race wan't the only contest, there were the
local races as well.  And when ads for local contests were broadcast, I
noticed a couple of things - if a candidate was opposed to legislation
restricting access to legalized abortion his/her ads would almost always
describe him/her as pro-choice, and if a candidate was in favor of 
legislation which would highly restrict access to legalized abortion,
no mention of this position was made (except in his/her opponents ads).

Of course, such tactics may be reflective of the region of the nation
I live in, but I found the omissions suggestive of the unpopularity
of the position and more than a little bit dishonest.  

As for the role of abortion in the presidential race, I think the issue
was pretty much settled after the Republican convention.  The platforms
adopted by each party, and the speakers at each convention, gave us all
a pretty good idea of who stood for what.

>>I must have been watching a different election too, then, and especially
>>a different vice-presidential debate.  In the debate I saw, Al Gore
>>asked Dan Quale to state that he (Dan) supported a woman's right to
>>choose, and Dan wouldn't.
>
>If I were Dan, I wouldn't have answered such a patronizing charge, even if I
>agreed with him.  (Which Dan does not, of course.)

And we all can see where it got him.  What I find telling is he didn't
seem to have the courage of his convictions to say that he was opposed
to a woman's right to choose an abortion.

-- 
Jim

Once I was single.  Now I am married.
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts)
Subject: Re: Am I "exploiting" this woman?
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 15:46:16 GMT

In <Bx9t58.MGI@world.std.com> marty@world.std.com (Marty M HaleEvans) writes:
>kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts) writes:
>>How far should someone have to go to protect your hyper-sensivity?  It is
>>enamel off of my teeth, because it is an unnecessary restriction.  I

Now here is a knee that jumped real high.

>That depends on how compassionately you style yourself as a human being.

>Unnecessary restriction is a dumb-ass argument -- clothes are, too, but I
>assume you wear those to work. So is chewing with one's mouth closed and many
>other things we think of as common courtesy. The bottom line is that the world
>doesn't run well if we all do exactly what we feel like at any time we feel 
>like it, and there are just times when we do things to make other people 
>comfortable in this world, too.
First, the concept that two intelligent people can come to a compromise seems
to elude you.  Second, we have restrictions for reasons.  Is hyper-sensivity
a good reason for adding more restrictions?  You also seem to think that
courtesy is a one way street.

>Furthermore, unless you work in a brothel, I don't understand how pictures of
>naked or semi-naked people has anything to do with your job. It's simply an
>unprofessional distraction at best, and I'd feel differently about the ability
>such a person would have to take his or her job seriously and do a good job.
>(Especially if I were that person's boss and were responsible for justifying
>his or her paycheck to whomever makes the budget.)

Since I don't participate in a sterile environment, personal decorations are
acceptable, and probably encouraged.  You demonstrate a very narrow view
of people, and poor management skills.  I would think that you would need a 
little more information before you could guage the impact of any  given
poster on the performance of an individual.

>Could it be because you feel that your right to  do whatever you damn please
>is more important to you than considering the slightest pain you cause to 
>anyone around you?
Or could it be that it be that the issue is a wee bit more complex than your
grade school analysis?

Ken
Xref: sparky soc.women:19251 soc.men:19019
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: Was Clinton's victory America's message to the Anti-Choice?
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com
Date: 9 Nov 92 17:04:51 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: EDS Unigraphics, Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: rivero

In article <92311.022651KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>, Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
> In article <1992Nov5.155055.28256@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU
> (David Knapp) says:
> 
>>It seems to me that one of the largest deciding factors, along with the
>>economy, in pushing Clinton past the finish line was abortion. It seems
>>that few voted 'for'  WClinton (or even 'for' Perot) but did this as a
>>vote *against* Bush.
> 
> You were watching a different election.  The issue of abortion was virtually
> -never- addressed, by either sides.  It was never mentioned in the vice-pre-
> sidential debates. And I never saw representatives of NOW or Planned Parent-
> hood of NAFTA out campaigning for Bill Clinton.  Nope, abortion was a very
> MINOR factor in this election.

  Maybe not where you were, and maybe not by the candidates themselves, but
abortion was the main theme of the Democratic ads here in Los Angeles.
The single most prominent radio spot (one which quoted Pat Robertson's
comment about feminists practicing witchcraft) made the statement that the
Republicans were anti-abortion and the Democrats pro-choice, no "if's", 
"and's", or "but's" about it. It was a black and white issue.




<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com  "Middle-aged Mutant Ninja Animator" |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|      If Thomas Jefferson were alive today, he'ld be ASSASSINATED!      |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Xref: sparky soc.women:19377 soc.men:19124
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com (Michael Rivero)
Date: 11 Nov 92 15:54:41 PDT
Distribution: usa
Organization: M&E (Division of EDS), Cypress CA

In article <1992Nov6.160742.26160@cbnews.cb.att.com>, lib@cbnews.cb.att.com (Lib) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov5.212006.2145@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> krw@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (keith.r.smith) writes:
|> >In article <1992Nov5.205232.3707@cbnews.cb.att.com> lib@cbnews.cb.att.com (Lib) writes:
|> >>In article <1992Nov5.202426.29752@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> krw@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (keith.r.smith) writes:
|> >>>
|> >>>This super-slim fashion model trend had its advent in the sixties with Twiggy,
|> >>>and then just sorta' "stuck".  I think that part of the reason for the success
|> >>>of this trend is that the clothing designers have an easier time displaying
|> >>>their designs to best advantage on skinnier (flatter) women, simply because
|> >>>they have less of the curves that might otherwise affect the shape of the
|> >>>garment as worn.  This applies a bit less so to swimwear models.  The downside
|> >>
|> >>Not true, you're just making that up as you go along.
|> >>


  The trend towards ultra-thin models is based on the fact that photography
and translation to 2D adds psychological weight to the picture. The models
must therefore be underweight to be seen as "normal" by the average
viewer of the ad. Thinner people also have better facial "planes" which
look good under directed lighting, helping them to retain an illusion
of 3D after a four-color halftone process. Also, a thinner body is more 
forgiving of a bad fit in the fashion. It's a pragmatic bias, but one that has
indeed crossed over into mainstream society as an ideal.




<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com  "Middle-aged Mutant Ninja Animator" |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|     This is my last week at EDS (mdcbbs.com) and since I am planning   |
|    to run the animation shop as a full-time business (unless a higher  |
|    paying job comes along) I will be off the net for the near future.  |
|    I want to thank all the posters, my net-friends, and even my        |
|    net-enemies for having made this last year a most interesting and   |
|    colorful time!                                                      |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
From: joan@koala.berkeley.edu ()
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: More Women Than Men Prefer to be Alone
Date: 10 Nov 1992 19:58:02 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: koala.berkeley.edu

In article <1doj8oINNjkk@news.aero.org> foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
]>A news item this morning said that 20% of married men preferred to be home
]>alone. However, 50% of married women preferred to be home alone.
]>
]>Are there other studies similiar to this? What are the reasons for more
]>women then men preferreing to be by themselves?
]>
]>Richard Foy  Redondo Beach, CA         Standard Disclaimer

	If more women than men are deeply involved in the caretaking of
others in their homes (children, invalids, elders, serving husbands,
etc.) then being home alone is like being off work or on vacation.

Joan V



Newsgroups: soc.women
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Sad Day for Liberty
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 92 05:29:03 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.183657.3352@m.cs.uiuc.edu> carroll@cs.uiuc.edu (Alan M. Carroll) writes:
>In article <1992Nov7.202854.24075@leland.Stanford.EDU>, farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>> So, Rosa Parks should have just walked or drove a car or better yet
>> formed a bus company that didn't force blacks to sit in the back and
>> give up seats to whites.
>
>Uh, isn't that exactly what she did, walked instead? And convince a
>lot of other people to do the same? Perhaps my memory is faulty, but I
>thought Rosa Parks started the Montgomery bus _boycott_.

Yes, that's what happened.  Also, people started car pools, too (those
who could afford cars in the first place).  But the boycott also
stopped the inequality from being enforced by the police.  After all,
Parks was arrested by police, not just kicked off the bus.

From what I've seen of the Libertarian position, they want this
inequality enforced to preserve their freedom of association.  (My
"freedom of association" allows me to have those people arrested who
refuse to sit at the back of the bus or give up their seats to
whites.)

Newsgroups: soc.women,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 14:33:50 GMT

In article <1992Nov3.225229.19670@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>In article <1992Nov3.132252.29571@cbnews.cb.att.com> lib@cbnews.cb.att.com (Lib) writes:
>| In article <1992Nov2.212103.12012@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>| >
>| >The legislation was for -spousal- notification. And if my wife was pregnant,
>| >and it was not my child, I would think that I would have a right to know.
>| 
>| Great post. You did a good job of putting down all those ridiculous
>| examples he came up with.
>|   
>| One question. Why would you have a right to know that the child your
>| wife was carrying was not yours? Does she not control her own body?
>
>I don't know what Rich will answer, but I remind you that marriage
>is a special type of contract with specific responsibilities for
>the contracting parties.  Among them are, in most jurisdictions,
>strict limitations or injunctions as to sexual and reproductive
>behavior, control of one's body notwithstanding.

It has happened again, we are in agreement. Is this a valid excuse for
a party? :^)

>
> )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
>( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: soc.women,talk.politics.theory,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.classics
From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: Plato's Views on Women
Keywords: Plato, politics, women, feminism
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 16:30:21 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.224552.13699@psych.toronto.edu> christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green) writes:
>In article <1992Nov8.174054.9777@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>>In article <BxE64p.ID5@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>>>the answers to philosophical questions are matters of objective fact

>>	Uh, Brian, did you really mean to say this?

>Sometimes, they are matter of *subjective* fact. Do you have feelings?

I completely disagree.  Do you think that the proper answers to any
philosphical questions ought to be derived from feelings?  What's so
subjective (in the factual vs. arbitrary sense) about feelings anyway?

Could you give an example of this principle?

--Brian

Newsgroups: soc.women,talk.politics.theory,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.classics
From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: Plato's Views on Women
Keywords: Plato, politics, women, feminism
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 16:27:05 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.174054.9777@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>In article <BxE64p.ID5@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>>the answers to philosophical questions are matters of objective fact

>	Uh, Brian, did you really mean to say this?

Yes, I meant exactly what I said.  Perhaps a few examples will make this
clear.

EITHER reality is another dimension of ideal forms dimly reflected by the
reality we perceive OR it isn't.

EITHER knowledge of reality is possible OR it isn't.

EITHER morality derives from the dictates of a supreme being OR it doesn't.

EITHER art is anything anyone chooses to call art, or it isn't.

EITHER capitalism is the best political system OR it isn't.

Which ever side of these positions you take, you can't say that BOTH
sides of the issue are true.  In doing so, you have to first assume
the law of identity, which establishes the objectivity of knowledge.
If you don't understand why that is, just assert that the answers to 
philosophical questions are NOT matters of objective fact, and I'll show
you what I mean.

--Brian