HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: TRINGHAM@usmv01.usm.uni-muenchen.de (Tringham, Neal)
Subject: Re: Maternity Leave and Child Benefits 
Organization: University Observatory Munich, FRG 
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 19:36:38 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <1992Apr6.053700.6260@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> ash@sumex-aim.stanford.edu writes:

> Yes, this is true to a large extent.  Regarding Canada vs. Europe, my
> understanding about the British health care system (only a small data point)
> is that it is a *two-tier* system so the gov't can afford to cut costs
> without alienating the wealthy, who can afford upper tier care.  

Um, in a sense. NHS hospitals offer improved non-essential services (eg
single rooms) to people who pay for them, and there is a private system
as well. However, unless your employer pays for private health insurance
you're unlikely to actually use the private system for anything other than
minor medicine (eg wart surgery) unless you're very wealthy indeed. This is 
broadly similar to most Continental systems. However, cutting costs in the NHS
(in the sense of cutting level of care rather than improving the amount of
care you get per ecu) WILL alienate many members of the wealthy, whether they
themselves use the NHS or not. The Health Service is a Sacred Cow in British
politics. You meddle with the quality of her seed cake at your peril. In 
fact, as far as I know no British government has EVER cut the (real) amount
of money devoted to the NHS. It usually goes up, under both Tory and Labour
governments. 

>The
> Canadian system is a *one-tier* system so the gov't has to spend sufficiently
> much more to avoid pissing off the wealthy.  Hence the deficit.
> 

Really? The Canadian deficit is solely due to their health service? Are
you sure? I would have expected (eg) unemployment insurance and/or Keynesian
public works programmes to be contributory factors at the very least. 
Incidentally, does this mean that there is NO private medicine in Canada? 

> But this is getting even more removed from soc.men, since I'm now talking
> about a different social program (health care) than we started talking about.
> 

Yes. Since we seem to have (as usual) failed to convince each other, we could
simply abandon things at this point... what do you think? 

> No, I'm saying we can't have it both ways.  If Catholics are sufficiently
> powerful to demand childcare for their large families, they may also be
> sufficiently powerful to force the rest of us to not use birth control or
> have abortions.  This seems to be a good reason to reduce the power that
> specific groups have over government, and a good way to do that is to
> reduce the power of government period.
> 

I doubt that getting other people to stop using birth control requires
no more political clout than getting them to pay an extra 1% tax. But, as
you say, this is a long way from men's issues (presumably). 

[more deleted since I suspect neither of us is really addressing 
the point. Whatever it may be] 


[More deleted on the grounds that if I objected to it (and I don't by any
means disagree with all of it) I'd only be repeating myself. Again.]

Neal Tringham
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: <None>
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com
Date: 13 Apr 92 17:02:31 GMT
Followup-To: set this correctly or you'll be sorry!  :-p
Distribution: na
Organization: M&E (Division of EDS), Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: rivero

In article <1992Apr10.165017.1@vm2.cis.pitt.edu>, tjw@vm2.cis.pitt.edu writes:
> 
> From the March 30th, 1992 edition of TIME (Page 52).
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Pornography currently has more protection than women do", MacKinnon told the
> statehouse committee considering the Massachusetts bill.  In corroboration,
> several witnesses gave chilling testimony of being sexually abused by
> husbands and boyfriends who admitted that they had been prompted by porn
> films or magazines.  Fighting back tears, Pat Haas of Brookline, Mass., said
> she had been beaten by her boyfriend, who forced her to act out scenes from
> pornography.  "He did what was in the movies", says Haas.  "If he had seen a
> SNUFF FILM, I wouldn't be here". 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 


  Darcy Kayleen Pierce killed Cindy Lynn Rey and then removed Cindy's
unborn baby with a set of car keys.

  I suppose it was those damned "Huggies" commercials that did it!

  No, I take it back. It's that story about King Solomon in the Bible. Guess
webetter start burning that book, before all heaven breaks loose!  :)



<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com Homo Cyberneticus-Computational Man  |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|    Anyone who manages to get from birth to death without getting at    |
|   least one ugly scar just wasn't DOING anything!                      |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
From: bev@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu (Beverly Huntsberger)
Subject: Re: Is this a case of sex discrimination?
Organization: Univ. of South Carolina, Columbia
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 17:38:03 GMT

In <702281010@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:

>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.

	If "the county Probation Dept"
	is predominantly controlled by people who
	happen to men AND the judges are predominantly
	people who happen to be men AND the laws were
	put into place mostly by people who happen
	to be men...

	Then NO, this is not sexism against men, This
	is CLASSISM. Most men ARE in fact victims of
	classism. A few rich, greedy, fat cats have
	been in control for all of recorded history
	in our European cultures as well as many others.

	Feminism arises because MOST of those few rich,
	greedy, fat cats happen to be men. Black power
	comes about because MOST of those few rich,
        greedy, fat cats happen to lighter skinned. 

	A lot of people get confused in the heat of
	discussion and forget these basic tenets.
	I'm sorry I "all-capped" at you. One thing
	those few rich, greedy, fat cats have to do
	to stay in power is to pit everyone else
	AGAINST each other. Then they disguise it
	whatever they think they can sell with catchy
	titles like anti-"reverse discrimination",
	"pro-life", "lower taxes", "war on drugs", etc.
	
	People like David Duke and Jesse Helms and
	Orin Hatch serve to tear apart the forces
	that might otherwise unite and undo the
	status quo power structure. Try joining in
	the ongoing causes of human rights, equal
	rights, privacy rights, Earth rights, etc.
	Fighting each other will get us all nowhere.
	
	It is exactly what those dudes at the top want.
	Which is why they have always tried to convince
	YOU that you are one of them. Don't believe it.
	As yet, I don't.

Bev

-- 
-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Just read his lips:
Now, he wants us to believe in the "tooth fairy".
-	-	-	-	-	-	-
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Japanese Women's Lib
Date: 14 Apr 92 20:41:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.jayj5vg.sheaffer
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Apr14.015028.591@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> ash@sumex-aim.stanford.edu (David Ash) writes:
>>OF HISTORY, ARE WRONG, AND MUST FOLLOW US!!!!!!!".
>
>No, feminism has a strong toehold in Canada.  The funny thing is that if you're
>otherwise right and feminism is a U.S./Canada thing, it would be highly
>ironic because the feminists in Canada are among the first to shout about
>how different Canada is from the U.S.

You could be right about this. I have not spent much time in Canada
recently. Because the two cultures ARE so close, it wouldn't surprise
me greatly. Let's call it then a "peculiarly North American perspective."
-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!

     "In the 1970's the world will undergo famines - hundreds of millions
     of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs 
     embarked upon now ... in 1985, when it is calculated [under the most
     optimistic scenario] that the major die-back will be over, ..."
       
                       Dr. Paul Ehrlich, "The Population Bomb," 1968
From: shomer@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Angela Davis:  What's she up to these days...
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 19:11:49 PDT
Reply-To: shomer@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc

In article <2718@unisql.UUCP>, wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie) writes:
> In article <1992Apr10.174728.12309@petunia.csc.calpoly.edu> 
> dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU  (Dave Gross) writes:
> >	[Angela Davis is coming] to speak in a few days and I want 
> >to know what to expect.
> 
> 	Cordite?  C4? Armored car heists ?
> 	:-)

Wharfie, would you have made the same comment about the (white) French 
intellectuals who fought in the Resistance? ("Camus? Sartre? Ah, they're 
just a bunch of terrorists; don't take their ideas seriously.") 
She's been an academic for a rather long time now. 

I think Davis is still teaching at San Francisco State University. She 
was just purged as part of the pro-democracy faction in the Communist
Party, USA. 

Followups don't belong in soc.men; perhaps in talk.politics.misc?
-- 
_________________________________
Steve Homer  shomer@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us   (408) 427-2959
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion
From: bev@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu (Beverly Huntsberger)
Subject: Re: pro-choice == pro-(womens' only) choice?
Organization: Univ. of South Carolina, Columbia
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 17:29:12 GMT

In <1992Apr8.012627.16082@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> lundquis@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Jill Lundquist) writes:


>I am not a lawyer, but the idea that a man could renounce all
>rights and responsibilities toward a fetus or child for the
>same period of time that a woman is allowed to abort in that
>state seems a quite reasonable solution to me.  Please note

	I get queasy over the linking of these rights.

	I agree that men deserve protection under the
	law to some well-defined "inalienable" right to 
	renounce rights and responsibilities toward a
	fetus. I also understand that such a law would
	be indecent, IF it existed in a society where
	women were not protected against injustice.

	But what would it take to enact such laws?
	And what would it take to _undo_ such laws?

	Is it a few Spanish-speaking black women,
	driving Mitsubishis, who are in control of
	these realities? 

	We CAN change the laws, but we have to get
	there. In the meanwhile, nothing is more
	important to me, than to do whatever I can
	to insure that those FEW white men who have
	the power to change the laws that govern
	ALL OF US will keep the government out of
	my body. This is what is important because
	it is so endangered and those of us being
	affected are so disenfranchised.

	When the playing field is level, then women
	will be in a position to make-a-deal. For now,
	we're barely allowed to attend the game.
	
>that I do not believe that a man should EVER be able to force
>a woman to carry a pregnancy OR get an abortion.  But eighteen
>years is a long time, and it's not fair that a man is utterly
>dependent upon his lover's decision in an unplanned pregnancy,
>while she has a choice.

>It's still an ugly solution, but I don't believe there are any
>universally good solutions when someone gets pregnant by accident.
>This way, a woman has absolute rights to her body, but men have
>a way not to be liable for child support for eighteen years.

>BTW, I don't believe that men or infertile women have some kind
>of inalienable right to bring forth offspring, because I can't
>think of any way to give them that privilege without forcing
>some woman somewhere to bear a child for them.  Even when people
>are married, a pregnant woman must make the decision to have or abort
>a child.  

>-- 
>Jill Lundquist		lundquis@spot.colorado.edu		DoD #882

-- 
-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Just read his lips:
Now, he wants us to believe in the "tooth fairy".
-	-	-	-	-	-	-
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Bashing
Date: 10 Apr 92 17:58:42 GMT
Reply-To: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Distribution: na
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <8156@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul) writes:
>A big, hulking guy will likely try to beat you to a pulp. A tiny, petite 
>woman is more likely to stab/shoot you. Which would you prefer?

	Pulp! Pulp!  Big guys are actually safer than tiny women with guns,
I think.
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Smelling The Roses (was Re: Companies can afford it, right?)
Date: 9 Apr 92 00:17:25 GMT
Reply-To: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <KRANITZ.92Apr8162134@dspalley.mr.med.ge.com> kranitz@mr.med.ge.com (Wes Kranitz 4-6857 MRCE) writes:
>I think these feeling come with age. When I was young

	(Gotta love it... :-) "Forty years upon my head, to have you 
call me child..."  

>Most of the owners that spout that live in big houses and drive fancy cars. 
>Look at their salaries. If your making 35,000 the higher ups in your company 

	Not only isn't that part about the house&car true here, but Dr. Won
Kim, the CEO of Unisql, has been a widely-respected researcher in the field
for 20 years.  Why should he *not* be paid what he's worth?  

>And who's doing most of the work?? Wharfie, not the president of the company

	Bzzzzzzttt.  But thanks for playing.  *Everyone* works very hard
here.  And I probably wouldn't do this job for only 35K, anyway...  Y'all
think I'm _cheap_ or somethin' ?

> I have been upper management for several companies (including

	Ahhhh.  Since *you* knew greedy incompetent managers who took
advantage of their subordinates, you assume everyone else is like that. Why
is it so hard to believe that people can be treated fairly?

>I'd like to hear what Wharfie has to say 20 years from now.

	20 years from now I'm going to be growing organic zucchini on
a farm in Virginia. 

	I think this will be my last reply to all these sour-grapers:
"I was a bad boss so your boss is too" "My company screwed me so yours
is screwing you" "Why are you being dedicated and loyal? You're just being
played for a fool."  For such wise and wordly people, none of you seem very
happy with the choices you've made in the past...

			"Been ballin' that shiny black steel jackhammer,
			 been chippin' up rocks for the great highway.
			 Live five years if I take my time, ballin' that jack
			 and drinkin' my wine, yes i will..."


Xref: sparky soc.men:8338 soc.women:8868
From: shomer@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Camille Paglia on "Men"
Summary: Susie Bright tops Camille Paglia
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 20:44:31 PDT
Reply-To: shomer@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us
Followup-To: soc.women

Paglia's an odd duck indeed. There's a fascinating interview with her
by Susie "Sexpert" Bright in the Spring issue of Out/Look. Also an 
article on how gay men fit (or rather don't fit) into Robert Bly's work.
I highly recommend zipping down to your local queer-friendly newsstand
and buying a copy. 
-- 
_________________________________
Steve Homer  shomer@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us   (408) 427-2959
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: 16 Apr 92 00:52:00 GMT
Distribution: na

susan larsen writes

+ So I would suggest amending your original suggestion by 
+ adding a "three strikes, you're out" clause.  A man would 
+ be required to file his support exemptions with the courthouse.
+ On the third request, the man would have to show medical 
+ proof that he has obtained a vasectomy, thereby obviating 
+ the need for any further support exemptions. No vasectomy, 
+ no third exemption will be granted.

And for a woman behaving similarly? One can make the same arguments. 

K'Char
From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Yes, it is racism, Robert (was: Mixed Couples -= but it's not ra
Date: 12 Apr 92 06:16:46 GMT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

Charles Herrick writes
>Robert Sheaffer writes
>> In article <12075@tamsun.tamu.edu> cnh5730@maraba.tamu.edu (Charles  
>Herrick) writes:
>> > For a while I was dating a Korean female (actually, I  
>> >never date American females anymore, but that's another story :-), and  
>I  
>> >never ceased to be amazed at how puposefully-rude people were willing  
>to  
>> >be. 
>
>> I have't been in that situation, but it doesn't surprise me at all.
>> However, this has NOTHING to do with racism!
>
>Sorry Robert. You missed the point (yet again, sigh).
 
Actually, Robert's "union vs scab" paradigm is quite accurate but
it is also consistent with racism.
 
Any actions influenced, even in part, by an awareness of statistical
correlations with race, are racist.  It is easy to see how American 
Women might see oriental women as "scabs" and become racist in their
attitudes and actions.  Robert took his case a little further than
he should have in saying "this has NOTHING to do with racism", but his
analysis was correct to first order.

--                    
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: stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Feminazis: myth or reality
Date: 14 Apr 92 22:56:01 GMT
Distribution: na

Cindy Kandolf writes
+ Charles Herrick writes:
+ >Note that pornography is being equated with violence and snuff films
+ >by the feminazis again.
+ 
+ Note the term "feminazis" being used by someone wishing to discredit 
+ anything that _might_ be feminist again.  Quite honestly i wonder if
+ the people who use that term ever think about what the Nazis were.
+ Scratch that, what the Nazis are, because they're still around.

The model used for this particular anti-pornography law is one put together
by Dworkin and McKinnon. One that states that male-male pornography is
offensive and should be banned becasue it is degrading to women.

Considering how D&M's model defines pornography so loosely, is it any wonder
that feminist supporters of this model can become called "feminazis"? "Trust
us, we know what's best for you.". 

I've heard that a whole bunch of times...Lenin said it, Mao said it, Hitler
said it, FDR said it...usually with distasteful [at best] results.

I know what the Nazis stand for, Cindy. They at least are honest about it.
I can't say the same about a lot of the feminist movement - forked tongues
make that kinda difficult.

K'Char
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Women for Nerdy White Males?
Date: 16 Apr 92 22:23:03 GMT
Reply-To: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <1559@tymix.Tymnet.COM> baba@Tymnet.COM (Duane Hentrich) writes:
>Do you sit around and try to think up ways to insult men? 

	I really can't believe that this Jim Bowery's fer real.  He's
either a master of satire or a complete lunatic.
								wr


Xref: sparky soc.men:8537 alt.censorship:3356
From: cnh5730@maraba.tamu.edu (Charles Herrick)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.censorship
Subject: Feminist Nazi -=and in Germany, no less=-
Date: 16 Apr 92 17:15:58 GMT
Followup-To: soc.men

I grabbed this off the "discussion" net newsgroup that covers  
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica, the picture-only newsgroup.

If you ever had any doubt that feminists deserve to be called:
		Feminazi
you shouldn't after reading this ...

BEGIN--CUT HERE--
From: UZR50C@ibm.rhrz.uni-bonn.de (Shana Fliginger)
Newsgroups: alt.binaries.pictures.erotica
Subject: Help a victim of feminists |||
Date: 15 Apr 92 16:17:33 GMT
Organization: RHRZ-Uni-Bonn

I'm sending a request for help to everybody|
I consider myself a victim of feminists. It's not that I
dislike feminists in general, but this time they have done
something I don't really want to accept.
Following a complaint of some feminist groups, here at the
universiy they have shut down all access to news groups which
contain the word "sex" in their name| With this action they
are trying to stop the spread of pictures that don't fit their
views. I am now unable to access news groups such as
alt.sex.pictures; this group is the only one that has been
left untouched (probably because of its name), but who knows
for how long it will remain within my reach.
It is my opinion that what pictures I want to look at is my
very own business and I don't want to be censored in such a
way.
So here is my plead: I would be most grateful to everybody
who could supply me with some information on how I can get
hold of those "adults only" pictures by other means than the
news groups mentioned| I would greatly appreciate names of
ftp sites, mail addresses of people, mailing lists etc. (both
Internet and Bitnet) and of course some actual pictures|
I must admit that my amount of pictures is still quite tiny
at the moment, but I am certainly willing to share EVERY
picture that I get with EVERYBODY who wants them. Promised|
So thanks a lot to all those of you helping me out of this
"misery"|||
You can reach me via the following addresses:
     Internet:   UZR50C@ibm.rhrz.uni-bonn.de
     Bitnet:     UZR50C@DBNRHRZ1
END--CUT HERE--
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: TRINGHAM@usmv01.usm.uni-muenchen.de (Tringham, Neal)
Subject: Re: Japanese Women's Lib
Organization: University Observatory Munich, FRG 
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 17:09:14 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <r#qj-dl.sheaffer@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com writes:

> >In article <HaqqiB1w164w@netlink.cts.com>, jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
> >> How and why do American males feel about the increasing liberation 
> >> of Japanese women?
> 
>    The amazing thing (to me, at least) is how incredibly *happy* so 
>    many women seem there, especially the younger ones. (Maybe they're
>    happy because they know it's the MEN who will end up having to
>    work so devilishly hard!) I have *never* seen anyplace where the
>    women laugh and enjoy themselves with such abandon. I don't THINK
>    you can fake that, it seems too real, too spontaneous and widespread.
>    

The only Japanese I have ever personally known was a woman. She hated the
society from top to bottom, starting with `attitudes towards women' and
working up to `attitudes towards foreigners' via `company practices' and
`how to say what you really think'. Yes, it's anecdotal, but I
think you have to be VERY careful when making judgements about what people
from another culture really feel on the basis of two weeks' experience,
particularly when that culture is as concerned with appearances as Japan's.
I'm sure many Japanese women are quite happy with their lot. I wouldn't
care to bet on all, or even necessarily a majority.

Neal Tringham