HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Boycotts (was Re: Why are many low-income women fat?)
Date: 30 Dec 92 00:31:51 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: The Scorpions Nest

In article <C0194t.pA@news.cso.uiuc.edu> 
levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:

[Social justice]
>>        Please define.

>I can't. I am not even sure that one rigid definition would always
>be appropriate.  

You reject the usual definition, but you don't give any other definition.
How do you suggest to discuss something so undefined?
(This is not a rhetoric question.)

>I don't know what "great" means. But the fact that conditions are
>better in this country, on the whole, than many others, does not
>mean they cannot be improved.

If you have a machine that works reasonably well then it is not
a good idea to "improve" it before you understand it.

It seems to me a better idea to start fixing what does not work.
E.g. finding out why NY has the highest state taxation on an
average family in the nation, but it gives lousy services.

>>        I have a very *clear* concept of right and wrong.  It is not
>>        muddled by goofy social ideals.  For me, right and wrong are
>>        black and right--there can be no "almost right" because that
>>        almost certainly implies that there were ulterior motives,
>>        and I consider motivation a prime factor in determining
>>        right and wrong.

I care about the results much more than I care about the intentions
and/or motivation.  E.g. if a mechanic tries to fix your car, but fails,
do you care about his good intentions, or about the lousy final result?
If a good Liberal like Johnson tries to create a better world by
sending 500,000 men to Vietnam, do you care about his good intentions
or about the final result?  (This is not a rhetoric question.)

>By the way, what do you think of the idea of giving a rapist who
>doesn't use a rubber a much higher penalty? Of charging them
>with attempted murder rather than rape?

If the rapist has AIDS, or he thinks (rightly or wrongly) that he has
AIDS then the rape should be considered an attempted murder.

>Lenore Levine

Hillel                                 gazit@cs.duke.edu

Never worry about theory as long as the machinery does what it's
supposed to do.
		-- R. A. Heinlein
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood)
Subject: Re: I HAD NO CHOICE ( was: Biological reaso
Reply-To: jsw@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 21 Dec 92 16:53:45 CST

In article 724638124@lear.cs.duke.edu, gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:
>#Actually, it sounds like he's upset that he got a RAW DEAL from the state. 
>#He not only lost his house and his kids, but he also gets to lose a big
>#chunk of his income, keeping him from getting ahead again.  While his
>#ex-wife gets to live in his house with his kids, he gets to live like a
>#slave.  How nice.
>
>In article <43XXVB1w165w@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca> lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca writes:
>
>> What is this? A wee bit of misogyny?  Talk about inflammatory generalizing!!!
>> Not ALL women are nasty, just as not all men are assholes. 
>
>The laws set in such a way that women can win, a lot, by being nasty.
>Quite a few people just can't stand the the temptation regardless of
>their race, sex and other irrelevant details.
>
  Purchasing a home is really quite simple, but the leading advice
in the U.S. of A. is to secure the home with a lawyer. He/she will review
the contract and mayby, just maybe he/she can prevent any future problems.

 If any man sought professional attorney advice concerning the marriage
contract, the standard traditional contract as interpreted by a court, 
a man's attorney will tell him NOT to become entangled in such an 
agreement. 

 No male in his right mind would get married without a prenuptial agreement.

 My advice to all men is for them to stay single. Marriage is a lose-
lose proposition. My D.A. (domestic associate) and I are very comfortable
without one.

  Hillel's sound advice deleted.

Jon


Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,ba.singles,soc.singles
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: If he bothers you, put him in your KILL file, please.
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1993 07:19:20 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <1993Jan3.012417.22047@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>Please, put each other in your KILL files, *please*.
In <1993Jan3.012348.21961@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>
>If he bores you so much, then put him in your KILL file!
[...]
>Fine, then put him in your KILL file.
[...]
>Not a flame, just an observation that you can spare yourself a lot of this
>grief by making a KILL file.  If you don't know how to make one, simply
>ask your System Administrator.

Ya know, Will, if they bother you so much, why don't you just put both of
them in your kill file.  I happened to enjoy seeing Desiree tear him apart.
If you don't know how to make a kill file, simply ask someone who has a clue.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich)
Subject: Re: The White Feather Campaign
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:53:31 GMT
Organization: Trivializers R Us

In article <1992Dec22.035900.1682@kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca> DPIROT@vm.ucs.UAlberta.CA writes:
>Several 'womens groups' have been reported in the media as
>expressing outrage at the media reports of systematized rape camps
>in Bosnia, and are demanding military intervention in Bosnia to
>bring and end to the practice.
...
>However, even if there were some truth to the allegations, what
>seems to be happening is that the feminists are prepared to
>sacrifice the lives of young American men in order to protect the
>virtue of women. This seems to me to be a major step backward.
>What will we see next - feminists in the street handing out white
>feathers to young men to shame them into going to war to defend
>womankind from the Boche?
>Don't fall for it, guys.

"Virtue" ?!

I see: if a woman is gang-raped and then stabbed to death with
a bayonet, all she's lost is her virtue, but if a guy feels compelled
to try out for the football team so he can get a date, that's
violence against men.

Cluelessness about rape vs sex is the least of your problems

paul

Newsgroups: soc.men,misc.legal,ba.singles,soc.singles,soc.women
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Pre-Sex Contract
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1993 07:23:30 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <1993Jan3.012443.22112@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>bob@netcom.com (Bob Becker) writes...
>>In article <1992Dec18.063654.9388@netcom.com> rohwerwd@netcom.com (Mr. Tickle M
>>nster) writes:
>>>     Here is some more arguments for my point of view.
>
>>GET A CLUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>I am starting to notice something of a flaming rivalry among the folks at
>Netcom... If so, could you people please keep your flames in the local
>newsgroups?

And if not, could you all flame Will?  Thanks...

>>99% of the people on here think you're an ignorant jerk.
>
>Apparently not...

Apparently you're part of the 1% who don't.

>>Nobody is going to use a pre-sex contract.
>
>Perhaps not, but his advocacy of it, doesn't make him an "ignorant jerk".

Who said it was his advocacy of it that earned him that label?
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky soc.men:22061 alt.feminism:6771
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Date: 3 Jan 93 23:56:40 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

In article <726043390@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
| In article <1993Jan2.205430.10619@panix.com> 
| gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
| >It's a different issue.  Education and jobs involving
| >mathematics are manifestly social constructions.  Longevity
| >isn't (unless we socially knock a lot of people off).
| 
| Really?!
| 
| Have you ever thought about the following possibilities:

Et cetera.  And then we can bring up a bunch of things
that might reduce the length of women's lives.  And then
we can sort of work it back and forth like one of those
old saws where one person had to be on each side, pulling
it back and forth.  As I said, in the first place, and
could repeat ad nauseam but won't, it hasn't been shown
that male longevity is reduced by social factors, much
less what those factors might exactly be.  
-- 

 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,ba.singles,soc.singles
From: desiree@netcom.com (Desiree Champagne)
Subject: Re: If he bothers you, put him in your KILL file, please.
Summary: changes, changes, changes... I'm going to Disneyland
Organization: Brach's Chocolate Covered Raisins
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 19:51:01 GMT

In article <1993Jan3.012348.21961@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves
 <goid@zooid.guild.org> amuses me on a Sunday morning with:

[my comments about people forwarding articles just to get my attention 
deleted]

>If he bores you so much, then put him in your KILL file!  You needn't waste
>bandwidth with insults of "Don't bother me with your crap," when you need
>only place him in your KILL file and you won't have to worry about seeing
>anything that bothers you.

	Thanks for the Introduction to Usenet.  Much appreciated.  But
you see I have this thing about kill files -- I don't believe in them.

	If'n you're so concerned about wasted bandwidth, why didn't you
just forward your comments to me via mail?  

[my comments about whiny men deleted]
>Okay fine, then if the Moral Majority succeeds in outlawing abortion, and a
>woman complains to you that she's being forced to give birth, you can be the
>first to tell her:
>
>"If you can't pay the price -- don't enter the game".

	Oh learn to read.  Learn to understand something with both sides
of your brain.  If you can't, then just leave me alone.

>Sarcasm aside, believe it or not, just as women don't always have sex for
>reproduction, neither do men.  Neither *should* anyone, for that matter.
>Indeed, do YOU think that women should only have sex for reproduction?
>I didn't think so.  Indeed, so why *should* men?

	Where are you coming from?  What in the hell are you talking
about?  Get into context here kiddo. If you can't, you can't.

>Fine, then put him in your KILL file.

	Sorry Charlie, no can do. 

>Hmmm...were you not accusing some of these men of trying to control women?
>It sure seems as though *you* are trying to control *them*, now.

	Yea, and I also fight over the remote for the TV.  Nasty, huh?

>Not a flame, just an observation that you can spare yourself a lot of this
>grief by making a KILL file.  If you don't know how to make one, simply
>ask your System Administrator.

	Hahah.  This comes to us from a BBS user.

Amazing,

Desiree

Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Men's Liabilities (Male Choice)
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 15:38:59 GMT

<1h8fq5INNono@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:

>My position is that the
>birth of the child is already a matter of public record on 
>which the father can easily follow up (eg, by writing to the
>county recorder).  Thus there is no need for legislation 
>mandating "paternal notification".  

>Moreover, notification
>of the woman's pregnancy (as distinct from the *birth* of the
>child) is a violation of the woman's right to privacy.

I have no *great* desire to start up yet another thread,
but this implies that a man faces an 21-year liability
that can be thrust upon him in the space of a day.


He can't make any plans for his future or for the
future of his existing family (God forbid, buy a house), 
given that he may SUDDENLY face a $200,000 bill for 
a broken condom -- a bill that required the intentional, 
voluntarily continued, private, 9-month, hard efforts 
of a woman to generate.

His share of the liability: up to 100%.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 20:57:27 GMT

<bob1.725051279@cos> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
><BzMI8D.L4H@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>
>><bob1.724607266@cos> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
>>><BzB858.6EL@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

>>>>Are you actually so parochial that you think that any person who
>>>>has a one-night stand, who breaks up after a year-long relationship,
[...]

>>>Guess I'm just too old-fashioned, but if this crap is the 'Brave
>>>New World', I'll keep my tired old one thank you very much.
>
>>Keep it.  But don't legislate my children (intended or accidental
>>or unknown) away from me because of it.
>
>I have no intention of legislating anyone's children away from them.

I think you misunderstood the thread.  It's not an attack
on conservative sexual attitudes, per se.


Michal states that men should lose parental rights if they
do not follow her parochial code.

Frankly, I doubt my own attitudes are immensely different from yours,
as far as my own wishes are concerned -- although perhaps I am more 
accepting of others who behave "more liberally."

What I reject, completely and utterly, is to deny a man his
fatherhood by imposing a one-sided, parochial code of ethics
through law.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: elltankw@nuscc.nus.sg (Tan Kok Wan Peter (Dr))
Subject: Re: shaving
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 05:41:46 GMT

What about shaving soap, eh?  Much better than stuff from a can, though it
takes a bit more time working up the lather.  Try Old Spice for the stick
version, or the Body Shop for the round soap version.
                                      Peter
                                      23.xii.92
                                      elltankw@nuscc.nus.sg
P.S. Happy Christmas to everyone.
Xref: sparky soc.men:22040 alt.feminism:6746
From: pepke@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Date: 3 Jan 93 06:35:10 GMT
Reply-To: pepke@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: Florida State University, but I don't speak for them

In article <1993Jan2.205430.10619@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>It's a different issue.  Education and jobs involving 
>mathematics are manifestly social constructions.  Longevity 
>isn't (unless we socially knock a lot of people off).

Education and jobs involving mathematics are manifestly social constructions.
Modern medicine, which just happens to be about as old as the time period
during which women have outlived men, is manifestly a social construction.

Skill at mathematics may or may not be a social construction and may or may
not be innate; it may even be a combination of the two.  Longevity may or
may not be a social construction and may or may not be innate; it may even
be a combination of the two.

Note if you can that I am not arguing for a particularly envrironmental or
biological explanation for either phenomenon here.

>May I recommend that you not rely on echolalia as a method 
>of argumentation?  

May I suggest that you occasionally take a break from your usual practice of
only dealing with the most superficial interpretation of an opponent's 
argument?  It really is tiresome.

-EMP 
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
From: acp@cray.com (Anthony Peterson)
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 21 Dec 92 23:42:39 CST

In article <MUFFY.92Dec21154021@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>
>No, the issue is that every time someone talks about the violence that
>is practiced against women, some people here start shouting about the
>violence that happens to men.  Not only do they not seem to want us to
>work on the problem *we* are concerned about, but they further want us
>to work on *their* problems.  No one has *denied* that men have
>problems, those are simply not necessarily the problems that many
>feminists are concerned about.  It is apparently more interesting to
>advocates for men to attack anyone working on women's problems than to
>*do* anything about the problems they are supposedly so concerned about.
>
	So you're saying that the issue isn't violence, the issue
	is violence against women? Violence is not an issue unless
	it is directed against women? You aren't concerned with the
	level of violence in society as long as women aren't the
	victims? 

	You obviously aren't the solution, you're just another part
	of the problem.
From: gwangung@byron.u.washington.edu (Roger Tang)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Seperatists etc.
Date: 21 Dec 92 19:41:52 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Dec21.194152.9070
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <3182@devnull.mpd.tandem.com> dwelch@mpd.tandem.com (Dan Welch) writes:
>In article <MUFFY.92Dec19100433@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>In article <lj6nmnINN8jo@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums) writes:
>>>Face it, you put a bunch of computer
>>>nerds in a room, and it will likely turn to tech talk.  If women are
>>>there, those same conversations often don't occur -- different topics
>>>are discussed.
>>Absolutely false, in my experience.
>Absolutely *true*, though, in mine.

	But is this a function of the subject, the women or YOU? Or interaction
between all three?

	I've been with women who are perfectly comfortable discussing
hardware and software--but start to clam up when a particular person starts
yammering about computers.

	[Space reserved for optional gratuitous personal insult. Apply
several times if necessary]



-- 
	"I got into theatre originally to pick up girls. Unfortunately, all I
found were women..."
e-mail:  gwangung@u.washington.edu
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: shaving
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 18:55:59 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.145507.13706@acd4.acd.com> jwg@sedv1.acd.com ( Jim Grey) writes:
>In article <BzpwtE.HrJ@encore.com> aaldrich@encore.com (Al Aldrich) writes:
> (lots of deletia)
>>As to why men shave.. I also have no clue. I have heard that most men
>>prefer the `clean' feeling of a shaved face.. is this really true, or
>>do we just conform to convention?
>>
>>al
>
>
>I shave because I look stupid with whiskers.  The hairs on my face are too 
>sparse.  Of course, they're jet black, so I have five o'clock shadow at
>round 9 am.  If somebody comes up with permanent, painless facial hair
>removal, I'm the first in line.
>
>jim grey
>jwg@acd4.acd.com

	In my case, the hairs are quite popular and *very* fast growing,
	but there are conspicuous bald patches (lord knows why).  So I
	shave (plus, I'm young, and peoplemy age do not wear beards).

	But because they grow so fast, I get fuzz/stubble before the
	morning isover, and by late afternoon I need to shave--again.

	So, I too am interested in a permanent (or long term) facial
	hair removal system--pain doesn't much matter, because, hell,
	how long could it take?

	I've been warned off waxing, epilady and that weird caramel-looking
	stuffthey advertise on TV because people have told me that it would
	cause a lot of ingrown hairs.  Plus, I've been told that the chemical
	removers (nair, etc) are *much* too strong for facial use.

	Anyone have any ideas?  My hair is also *very* thick.  

	Stiff, too.  Stiff and thick.  Thick enough,
	in fact, that it is worse than sandpaper by the end ofthe day, and
	when rubbed the wrong way pushes in such a way that it's painful
	(to the skin with the whiskers growingoutof it...) 

-- 
	Blaming society for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
	         ---  Boycott == censorship == cowardice  ---
	Do I even need to point out that my views do not represent
	those of my employer, institution or relations?
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: michael@neuron6.jpl.nasa.gov (Michael Rivero)
Subject: Re: The White Feather Campaign
Organization: JPL Pasadena CA
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 16:53:19 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.035900.1682@kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca> DPIROT@vm.ucs.UAlberta.CA writes:
>Several 'womens groups' have been reported in the media as
>expressing outrage at the media reports of systematized rape camps
>in Bosnia, and are demanding military intervention in Bosnia to
>bring and end to the practice.
>As has already been pointed out in several postings, the reports
>are similar to the stories that were circulated in 1914, during the
>German invasion of Belgium about nuns being raped and babies
>bayonetted by 'the Boche', that were used to stir up war sentiment
>and encourage young men to volunteer for military service, stories
>that were later found to be fictitious.

  Actually, it's the Big Lie(tm) again. Remember when the war in Kuwait 
started? There were news reports about Iraq soldiers removing premature 
babies from theie incubators in order to ship the incubators back to Iraq. 
The stories were confirmed with a video taped interview with a nurse. 
Everyone got angry at the thought of these innocent (post born) babies being 
so heartlessly killed and we stomped Iraq back into the 19th century.

  Of course, once Kuwait was liberated, it turned out that there never was any
such crime committed and the "nurse" turned out to be the daughter of a high
government official who knew as much about nursing as I do about Sanskrit.

  The feminists have been using bogus charges of rape to motivate other women
against men in this country for so long, you'ld think they would recognize 
when the same trick is being used on them.

  $20 says there are no camps specifically assigned to the raping of women.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Omigod, he's BACK!  The Animator From HECK and his unchained PIXELS!   |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|                                                                         |
|  Thanks to some very generous support by folks whose names are          |
|  omitted to protect the insoucent, I once again have net access.        |
|                                                                         |
|    My sojourn at this email address will be brief as the Animation      |
|  Attic will soon take delivery of 2 UNIX workstations and will then     |
|  acquire it's own net-feed.                                             |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

-- 
Michael Rivero michael%neuron6@jpl-mil.jpl.nasa.gov
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Vasectomies
Date: 21 Dec 92 20:47:31 GMT
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <9212211457.AA03922@nms.hls.com> kartik@hls.com (Kartik Chandrasekhar) writes:
>Thus you can 'spray' all you want (the same volume) after a vasectomy 
>without much of a difference except that you will 'spraying' 'blanks'. 
>It does not affect your potency in any other way.

	I had a good friend who had a vasectomy with results much like
these.  

	Until he had prostate trouble and had to have that gland removed.
Normally, men who've had this done can still ejaculate a little.  But not
Jack...