HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: S7985203@deimos.ucc.umass.edu ( )
Subject: CFV: soc.penpals
Organization: University of Massachusetts at Amherst
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 02:51:10 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

Name of Newsgroup:  SOC.PENPALS

Status:  UNMODERATED

Charter:  This newsgroup is to make it possible for people on the net to 
	make friends and penpals.  This will also give people a chance to have 
	correspondents in other places of the world, which is helpful for 
	travel and tourism.  Included will be postings of information about 
	people interested in becoming a penpal and also general 
	information/questions about certain geographical locations are also 
	accepted.     


Rationale:  It's true that you can meet people through other newsgroups but 
	you do not always have the guarantee that they will want to 
	have penpals.  Having this newsgroup makes it easier to make 
	friends without possibly searching endlessly.  As one person said 
	to me during the rfd: "You can't tell much about a person from an 
	opinion or two in a post".  In soc.penpals, people would list post 
	some of their interests so others would get an idea about whether 
	they'd like to correspond with them or not.  Also, this newsgroup 
	has often been compared to alt.personals.  There is one major 
	difference.  There would not be any anonymous postings.  As one 
	person put it:  "...a lot hide behind anonymity to spew abuse and 
	intolerance". Therefore, without the anonymouse postings, we may get 
	rid of some of that.

Voting:  Please send all votes DIRECTLY to:
		
			s7985203@tethys.ucc.umass.edu


	Votes that are posted on the net WILL NOT be accepted.
	Please also be very specific as to whether you are voting FOR or 
AGAINST this newsgroup.  It is suggested that you word it similar to the 
following:
	   I vote FOR soc.penpals 
		   or			
	   I vote AGAINST soc.penpals

also accepted:  I vote YES for soc.penpals
			or
		I vote NO for soc.penpals

Please also include your name in your vote.


Voting Period:   All voting will end at 5:00 PM EST on APRIL 30, 1992!
		Any votes that are received after that time will NOT be 
		counted.		
		


Christy
From: tron@tc.fluke.COM (Peter Barbee)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: When the father is out of a job.
Date: 15 Apr 92 21:40:45 GMT
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA

>In article <1992Apr10.071528.2325@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
>>Oh, poppycock!  Is it $0.59, $0.63, $0.70 or what?  Men make more money
>>because men work more, men are told that their role in society is to be
>>a bread-winner, their success is measured by how much they make, they
>>take all the appropriate classes to obtain those practical and exciting

In article <791@dogear.spk.wa.us> root@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick) writes:
>The figures that have been bandied about are reflective of the way it is.
>They aren't an overall-income average, they're figures for man with job
>versus woman with same job.

I think more weight needs to be given to the first part of Aaron's
paragraph.  

Men have been trained since infancy that their worth is measured
economically.  Women were trained differently.

Is it any wonder that men tend to earn more money - be it by overall
average suppossedly equal pay for equal work?  When I was a kid
I played on a soccer team one year.  I was a good athlete and was one
of the better players on that team.  But the best player was this
smaller, slower, less athletically gifted kid from England.  It turned
out that his former home was just agog over soccer and all the kids
had played it (soccer that is, not just kickball or somesuch) since
they could walk.  He simply knew the game better than I did.  He knew
how to be where, how to fake someone out, how not to be faked, etc etc
so much better than I that he was able to make up any purely athletic
advantages that I had.  We see the same thing in international
basketball.

But I'm not defending any sexist practices.  Just making an observation.

Peter B
From: stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: You want to win(Men's rights and Women's rights).
Date: 14 Apr 92 01:25:07 GMT
Distribution: na

susan larsen writes

+ For the sake of argument, assume that Suzanne here is 
+ correct in her assumption that abortions will become 
+ illegal.  Let us leave the exceptions to be cases of 
+ rape, incest, and overt threat to maternal health.
+ 
+ How would the picture change?  How should it change?
+ Or would it?
+ 
+ Feedback?

Then men and women are even: no choice whatsoever.

K'Char
From: pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich)
Subject: Re: Men Are Not Cost Effective
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 23:29:43 GMT
Organization: (Ha!)

In article <1992Apr7.200503.9860@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
>In article <4593@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil> rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero) writes:
>
>>I generally try to be a sensitive 90's kind of guy, but my gut reaction to
>>the authors hypothesis and proposal is that she doesn't have a clue.  Her
>>solution is classically liberal -- don't insist on personal responsibility
>>for criminals, and try to punish some group you perceive has an advantage.
>>Wonder if she considers herself a feminist?
>
>	I thought that the artical was classically conservative - try and
>show how a certain section of society is defined by the criminal class,
>and attempt to punish that section based on that relationship. I wonder if
>she considers herself pro-family?

Idunno. What struck me immediately is the interesting set of parallels
between taxing men because they form the preponderance of the criminal
class and discriminating against women in employment because they form 
the preponderance of the take-time-away-from-career class. 

On the one hand, the proprtions are different; one the other hand,
so is the social utility. Comments?

paul


Xref: sparky soc.men:8343 soc.women:8878
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: pro-choice == pro-(womens' only) choice?
Date: 12 Apr 92 19:30:27 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena

rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:
>  As a divorced mother, you would. The father gets NO deduction
>for the child support he pays, but the mother gets the tax deduction for
>the child in her custody!

This is not a gender difference -- if the father had custody HE would 
get the deduction and the mother would no be able to deduct HER support
payments.

							--  Michal
From: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: pro-choice == pro-(womens' only) choice?
Date: 8 Apr 92 17:48:05 GMT
Reply-To: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Dept., Madison, WI

In <1992Apr7.185452.8793@gdr.bath.ac.uk> chpetk@gdr.bath.ac.uk (Toby Kelsey) writes:
>First I would mention that the alternative that has been
>mentioned most often has been to give the man who has not
>consented to fatherhood the ability to say he does not want
>to be the legal father, and to thereby lose his rights and
>responsibilities to the child.  One obvious problem is that
>whatever the legal position, he has still been forced into
>fatherhood.  Many people, including myself, would feel an
>attachment to our children which isn't dissolved by any
>legal ruling.

Fair enough.  However, I don't feel the same way that you do, so I do not
feel inclined to push for giving men the right to demand that women have
an abortion if they don't want to become de facto fathers.

>Consider a more abstract position.  Suppose you had placed
>some of your genetic material in storage (perhaps because
>you were about to undergo sterilization).  Would some
>third party have the right to use your material from the
>storage bank for procreative (or other) purposes?

>The obvious answer is no, not without your express
>permission.  No-one should be able to use your genetic or
>biological material without your permission.

I dunno; is it still yours (in an ownership sense) after it has physically
attached itself to another human being?  That's a little different than the
"sperm in a sperm bank" sense, I think.

>I hope no-one will disagree that to bring a child into the
>world without the agreement of both its parents is wrong and
>immoral.

Sorry, I disagree. :-)  The decision to bring or not to bring a child into
the world, once a fetus has been created, is entirely up to the woman, I
think (with exceptions for cases such as deception on the part of the woman,
rape of a man by a woman - if such a thing is possible - and so forth).
If an abortion could be performed without any significant inconvenience to
the woman, then I would agree, but as far as I know that's not possible.

-- 
Michael Rawdon
rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Department, Madison, WI

RandomSort:  It sorts numbers in constant order time, but does not guarantee 
correctness.
From: mikep@hpmwtd.HP.COM (Mike Powell)
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 03:55:19 GMT
Subject: Re: A neat story, and a question.
Organization: HP Santa Rosa Site (NMD MTA MWTD). - Santa Rosa, Ca.
Newsgroups: soc.men


	I'm sorry to hear about this situation....  If I have a clear
	picture of the events by your message, then you are yet another
	victim of the _fantastic_ expansion of the term 'sexual harassment'.

	Ten years ago, it usually meant that a person had to perform some
	sexual act (or tolerate one) in order to maintain good standing
	at work, or even to retain one's job.

	These days, all you need to do is say something or own/display
	something having even the _slightest_ connection to sexuality, near
	any sexually-hyper-sensitive woman.  (as we all know, it is genetically
	impossible for a man to be sexually harassed).

	You are probably a far greater victim of harassment.... although
	hardly anyone will notice becuse the harassment is not sexual, and
	secondly, you are a man.
	
	On a related topic:

	Many people seem to have a difficult time understanding the 
	difference betueen something that is sexist, and something of a 
	sexual nature that is uncomfortable or offensive.  They are two
	TOTALLY different subjects, and yet many folks get confused.

	I'm sorry that I cannot provide you with answers to your specific
	questions though....   Good luck.

	Apologies for the generalizations.... insert exceptions where
	appropriate.

	-Mike-
From: kranitz@mr.med.ge.com (Wes Kranitz 4-6857 MRCE)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Companies can afford it, right?
Date: 6 Apr 92 14:45:46 GMT
	<2652@unisql.UUCP> <34028@unix.SRI.COM>
Organization: GE Medical Systems

Valerie,

I think our friend Wharfie is living in a dream world. I've been there too. I've
owned stock or stock options in most of them. When they find some fool who'll work
harder and cheaper he'll be out on his ass faster then he can blink.

The attitude Wharfie is expressing is the one that especially small companies
like. It makes you feel as though your an important and respected member of the
company, when in reality your just being used to line someone elses pockets.

With as many people here as those that express those feelings, there won't be
any shortage of slave labor.

Wes
From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Feminists Growing Old Alone
Date: 16 Apr 92 16:05:30 GMT
Article-I.D.: netlink.VVZBJB1w164w
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

Robert Sheaffer writes:
>Oh, not true! While Faludi quite rightly debunks those accounts saying
>'you're more likely to get killed by a terrorist than get married',
>it is simply a FACT that the ratio of unmarried women to men rises
>sharply with age. One book gives the number of unmarried men for every
>100 unmarried women here in San Jose, and it's something like:
>
>  age 25, 110, 
>      30, 105
>      35   90
>      40   75
>      45   55 ...
>      65   20         (this is from memory, not exact).
>
>Couple this with the fact that most men middle aged or older are
>interested in a wife younger than themsleves, and we see that a
>woman's prospects for marriage fall off drastically as she gets
>older. 
 
The discontinuities are even more extreme than that.  The "liberation"
of young women to follow their limbic programming instead of using
their youthful sexual power to socialize young men, turns young men
into barbarians and young women into whores.  Although I consider
George Gilder to be a de facto traitor against the family due to the 
economic theories he promoted in "Wealth and Poverty", he did have 
integrity when he wrote "Sexual Suicide" and predicted with amazing
accuracy the outcome of feminism.  His problem was he never did
figure out the true origin of feminism and thus his economic theories
ended up undermining the very young males he wished to see socialized
his books on sex and gender.  Bottom line, he was born before 1950 so
he participated in the parasitism (including S&L debacle) of the 
60 million 50's boomers -- parasitism that has nearly destroyed our 
society economically and socially.
 
Sexual and economic exploitation of the 50's boomers by males born
before 1950 is pretty much responsible for feminism and for the 
explosion of homosexual behavior in younger males.  Thus
"conservatives" are just as guilty as "liberals" for our current
disaster.  It's just that "conservatives" prevented 50's boomers
from nesting by hoarding all the nesting material and the "liberals"
prevented those boomers from nesting by sexually "liberating" the
50's boomer females -- liberating them to be whores to corporate
and government bureaucrats instead of wives and mothers.
 
Now the 50's boomer males who aren't dying of AIDS, homeless or
otherwise debased, are starting, for the first time in their lives,
to claim some of their sense of personhood.  
 
Heaven help the 50's boomer females that, in the sexual power of
their youth, participated with the pre-50's males in the exploitation 
of the 50's boomer males.  
 
All they have now is their anger to comfort them.  
 
There are few things sadder than a lonely old whore stewing in 
her hatred of nature, especially when she was led into the life
of a whore at a young age by an older man.

--                    
INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!nosc!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 435-6181
From: williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: pro-choice == pro-(womens' only) choice?
Date: 11 Apr 92 15:36:48 GMT
Reply-To: williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com (Dances with Drums)
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: athena

In article <1992Apr09.192216.11330@digibd.com> merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes:
>Hillel, am I ever going to get an answer from you about the
>traffic accident analogy?  You know, where the driver of the
>car hits a pedestrian and later wants to limit his liability
>so charges of manslaughter don't "destroy his life" ...
---

	Your analogy is faulty.  Barring cases of force, in sex for
intimacy purposes, sex is consensual for both people.  In the case
of your car accident, the pedestrian presumably did not give consent,
and hitting him with a car would be tantamount to rape.  In the case of
rape, I would be predisposed towards giving the rapists no rights or
say so in any aspects relating the child, but would be predisposed
to requiring child support of them.

-wat-
--
***  Dances with Drums  ***
***    DoD #0492   Steed: Kawasaki '80 750LTD                             ***
:: If pro-choice means choice after conception, does this apply to men too? ::
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Japanese Women's Lib
Date: 8 Apr 92 10:44:43 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

In article <1992Apr6.230823.25610@tellab5.tellabs.com> chrz@tellabs.com
(Peter Chrzanowski) writes:
>I also think I don't know nearly enough about Japanese culture to
>presume to tell Japanese what they should or shouldn't do in Japan.

Do you know enough about South Africa culture to tell
South Africans what they should or should not do?

(If Carole were around then I guess that she would tell us once
again that when women are oppressed it is cultural, but when
men are oppressed it is political.)
From: baba@Tymnet.COM (Duane Hentrich)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Women for Nerdy White Males?
Date: 16 Apr 92 18:59:42 GMT
Reply-To: baba@Tymnet.COM (Duane Hentrich)
Organization: BT Tymnet Inc., San Jose CA

In article <Ry2BJB1w164w@netlink.cts.com>, jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
|> For all you nerdy white males out there, here are some services
|> that might be of interest (advertised in a southern californian 
|>  "singles" tabloid -- can't vouch for these folks):

Do you sit around and try to think up ways to insult men? Or am I 
missing the smilies somewhere?

-- 
d'baba Duane M. Hentrich	...!hplabs!oliveb!tymix!baba
                                         baba@Tymnet.Com
Warning: Expicit Thoughts
Xref: sparky soc.men:8083 soc.women:8655
From: tron@tc.fluke.COM (Peter Barbee)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Maternity Leave and Child Benefits
Date: 6 Apr 92 18:21:55 GMT
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA

As a quick preamble; I tend to agree with Celia's concept that too much
"science" can be shallow and impoverished.

In article <1992Apr1.082401.23304@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> ash@sumex-aim.stanford.edu (David Ash) writes:
>But people *are* behaving rationally.  For a lot of people on AFDC, having
>a kid was the most rational thing they could do financially.  I want to
>change the game a little, so that we subsidize people to improve their
>financial situation (read job training) not to have children.
>
>The problem you seem to have with my logic seems to be precisely that I'm
>being logical.  I admit that I want a system that rewards people for being
>rational and penalizes those who aren't.  To some degree this will be true
>of *any* system, so it's kind of a non-discussion.  There will always be a
>rational choice, so let's make the rational choice one that we'd like people
>to make.

My comments don't apply particularly to the AFDC question but to life in
general.  There is much that we all do that is not logical.  But is it
rational?  Just what is rational?  What is logical?

I think most of us make most of our decisions in a rational manner but
that doesn't mean another person will understand our decision on that
basis.  Secondly there are many many parts of life that do not reduce
to any sort of logical process.

I for one am glad at the irrationality of Mona Lisa's smile.

I find that in design (something that I, and my employers, think I'm
pretty good at) I do my best when I actively allow non-rational, or at
least non-logical, thought into the process.  I generally cannot trace 
the origins of my "best" ideas.  Rather these ideas just seemed to come
about, oftenimes seemingly from some seemingling unrelated idea or
activity.

This is part of what I read into Celia's comment.

As for AFDC, I certainly agree with David in that our welfare system
is broken.  And I tend to agree with his proposals.

Peter B
From: Eric.Forbis@f62.n282.z1.tdkt.kksys.com (Eric Forbis)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Is This A Case Of Sex Dis
Date: 8 Apr 92 00:33:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: tdkt.702812950.F00001

$>
$>In <702281010@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) wri
$>
$>>The newspaper comments that:
$>>#Male offenders, who are supervised by the county Probation Department,
$>>#must serve at least half their sentences before becoming eligible for
$>>#home surveillance unless otherwise ordered by a judge.  Women are
$>>#under no such policy.
$>
$>>I have a couple of questions:
$>
$>>1) Is this policy sexism against men?
$>
$>>2) If the policy was reversed (fat chance...) would it be sexist?
$>
$>>3) Why to use the word "male" instead of "man"?
$>
$>>4) Why to use the word "women" instead of "females"?
$>
$>>Hillel                                              gazit@cs.duke.edu
$>
$>>"When I do it to you it's sexism,
$>>when you do it to me it's feminism."
$>
$>	Look, Hillel, it's really very simple.
$>	I don't want to go back and forth on this
$>	either, so sorry if I offend YOU, but, I
$>	AM SICK OF THIS STUPID PIECE OF LOGIC.

It's true, valid, and to the point. If you can't answer these basic
questions, you don't have a leg to stand on.

 * Origin: The Spare Computer (1:282/62)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Mixed Couples -= racism lives =- (was: Older men and younger women (advice needed)
From: econrad@cs.wright.edu (Eric van Fossen Conrad)
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 04:09:06 GMT
Organization: Wright State University

>> My fiance is Korean by birth and Chinese by descent.  

>Is it possible people think the only races are white and black?

Maybe the hint is in the way you describe the relationship.
I notice that you describe her as "Korean, of Chinese descent"
rather than racially as "Oriental" or "Mongoloid" or using
some skin-color designation.  If other people take the same
view, then it is the international aspect that is drawing
attention rather than the interracial aspect.

The terms "Korean" and "Chinese" are national designations rather
than racial (or more accurately, skin color, which really doesn't
have a lot to do with race either.)  By the way, I suspect that
if she were, say, Nigerian or Australian (aboriginal) or a very
dark-complexioned Caucasian, then people would notice that she was black
and call it interracial.

Of course if she happens to be "Asian" (including Indians and
Pakistanis who are Caucasian) or "Hispanic" (also for the most part
Caucasian), then this would qualify as interracial according to these
racist forms that universities have asked me to fill out.  And if she checks
the "Other" box or the "Eskimo/Aleutian Islander" box, then I
guess it would have to qualify as an unrecognized interracial
relationship, i.e., no special funds available.

Hey, this all makes perfect sense to me.  I think...
-- 
-- Eric Conrad
This space for rent.
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Who's Bashing Whom? (was: Supposed "Non-Patriarchal" Societies)
Date: 8 Apr 92 05:24:54 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Labs, Livermore CA

In article <34029@unix.SRI.COM> maslak@unix.SRI.COM (Valerie Maslak) writes:
>In article <p0kjjdk.sheaffer@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
::Sally Quinn, in her syndicated article "Is Feminism As We Have Known
::it Dead?"

:In the opinion of this feminist, Sally Quinn is and always was a
:selfish opportunist who would do or be whatever she had to
:to get ahead and get attention, who has no business at all
:criticizing Steinem for choosing the company of a powerful man.
:Given who she herself married.

	And who's that? And what other things has Sally Quinn done
over her career? I always feel that there is something less than
sincere about a career woman bashing feminism; don't they believe in
the legitimacy of their own careers?

:Robert, I don't myself see Gloria Steinhem as a backslider. I see her
:as a woman who was courageous enough to be honest about what her
:life as a woman is like. She has insight and wit and perception,
:and many of us feel the better for having shared it.

	I agree. Maybe she just goofed in her choice of relationship.

:Now Sally Quinn, who I've watched since she first simpered her way
:onto a TV screen, you can keep.

/Loren
Newsgroups: soc.men