HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: arsmith@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Alan Smith)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Choice for men: moving beyond anti-feminism
Date: 4 Oct 92 19:16:55 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

In article <6791@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> mxsst1+@pitt.edu (Michael   Stroucken) writes:
>How about this to control human population: Every woman, who has had one
>child, will have her tubes tied. Unlike male sterilization, where there's
>a possible change in ejaculate (with psychological side effects), females
>will experience no change in sexuality, and can fornicate to her hearts content

Gad are you gonna get flamed.  I'm not gonna touch it.

If I was going to control the human population, I'd use nuclear weaponry.
I'm of the opinion that the human population will control itself.

Big Al.  Who wouldn't mind fornicating to someone's heart's content.
From: starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu (starbuck)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Violence && Freedom (was Philosophy for Gordon )
Date: 29 Sep 92 07:50:06 GMT
Organization: University of California, Riverside

In article <3804@unisql.UUCP> wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie) writes:
>In article <1992Sep26.130832.19088@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>>Freedom and violence are antithetical
>
>	Isn't it sometimes necessary to respond to attempts to restrict 
>your freedom with violence sufficient to ensure its continued existence?

I agree with you completely.  Human beings have struggled with questions
of pacism vs violence forever, it seems.  Violence seems to be the winner.
In fact I would say humans see the use of violence as an viable "option".
I feel at time we work ourselves to points in relationships where there is
no other choice but war and carnage.  But it bothers us.  We make up all
kind of rules and laws to govern violence.   Few of us don't have at least
one case where we feel violence is justified.  And of the few I would say
most are unaware that there is a point at which they too would become violent.

To be truly non-violent one has to know that one can respond with violence
and by an act of will not.  Ghandi said something like that.  He called
it non-violence of the strong.  Non-violence is something to be learned
and practiced, it is not something we are born with. 

Ghandi's salt march is a good example of the non-violence of the strong.
Closer to home was durring the civil-rights era of the 50's and 60's
when follower of Martin Luther King stood up to Bull Connor and as one
was clubed to the ground another stood in his place.  They would not
fight back but were not in fear of violence.  There is a big difference
between that type of non-violence and the other kind where the motivation
is fear of getting hurt.

Violence is much understood.  Most define it as something physical, but
violence can be emotional and spirtual in nature. 

Violence is not gender specific.  Women as well as men have it in them.
Making violence a gender specific problem as is done so often on the net
is to deny it's existence.  And in the end breed more violence.

starbuck
Xref: sparky soc.men:17208 soc.women:17268
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Followup on the missing/dead little girl
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com (Michael Rivero)
Date: 1 Oct 92 15:06:39 PDT
Distribution: world
Organization: M&E (Division of EDS), Cypress CA


  Last week, a grandmother reported her 5 year old granddaughter had 
wandered off while they were shopping at the Fox Hills Mall. When a search 
failed to find the little girl, police decided it was an abduction and
put out a description which led to at least one case of mistaken identity.
At the same time, police determined that the grandmother, as well as an aunt 
of the little girl were not quite truthful and suggested a polygraph test.

  At that point the women changed their story and led police to a shallow 
grave near Victorville where the little girl was buried. They claimed that
the girl accidentally drowned while taking a bath and the two women
decided to concoct the "lost child" story in order to not risk losing
funding for other children they care for in their home.

  Today, the District Attorney, stating that there was insufficient evidence
of a crime, ordered police to release the two women.




<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com  "Middle-aged Mutant Ninja Animator" |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Xref: sparky soc.men:17096 soc.women:17180 soc.singles:26720
From: weaver@jetsun.weitek.COM (Michael Gordon Weaver)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Book Rec.: _Bodies: Overcoming the Tyranny of Perfection_
Date: 30 Sep 92 00:52:03 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Sep29.045750.7592@samba.oit.unc.edu> Bathsheba.Grossman@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Bathsheba Grossman) writes:
>In article <0s_p3rd.sheaffer@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep28.035904.21232@cs.ucla.edu> coleman@rocky.cs.ucla.edu (Mike Coleman) writes:
>>>   Christine, for instance, the corporate vice-president, made
>>>   it very clear she has no interest in "pale hairless guys who
>>>   make great pasta," whom she calls "newts."  
>..
>>>   Dealing with a man who has a real female side is
>>>   unsettling."
>>
>>I think that just about every woman wants to be with a man who is "more
>>male" than she is. However, the big problem for many modern women is:
>>having moved so far in the direction of "maleness" herself, the number
>>of men noticeably "more male" than her is unfortunately rather small. 
>
>Actually, most of them have those Reverend Steely Scepters of Eternal
>Y-Chromosome Power, which decide the issue conclusively in my limited mind.
>
I have to agree with Sheba here, any woman who looks like a woman is 
'more female' than I, a man, am. Male and female are biological qualities, 
masculine and feminine are cultural. Even in within small groups, ideas
about what is masculine, what is feminine, and what is good for both
sexes varies a lot. For a certain type of relationship, female-ness is 
a requirement for me, and femininity (if not overdone) is a plus. 

>I say, bring on the newts!  They've all got 'em, and someone around here had
>better get in touch with their femininity or I'll never again eat anything
>but lunchmeat ends on day-old bread.  This survey plainly left out all the
>*real women, who don't bother to reinforce their sex-role-play by taking
>part in studies about it, and are totally comfy switch-hitting.
>
Well, for my part, I find femininity in a woman pleasant, but if I am 
going to be with someone day in and day out, I want someone who can
adapt to the situation, which often means acting outside a narrow
role. And a healthy relationship requires role reversals now and
then.

Michael.
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
From: ghg9827@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (G. Harikumar )
Subject: Re: Value of Womens' Lives (was: _Backlash_)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 18:31:49 GMT


peters@cs.city.ac.uk (Peter Smith) writes:

>>Why is it that when a disaster occurs the news usually reports it something
>>like this?  'And ten were killed by the bomb, including two women and a 
>>ten month old baby.'  Now its obvious that mentioning the baby is to heighten
>>the sense of tragedy.  What do you think the reason is for mentioning the
>>women separately?

>Quite simple.
>Because women and babies are very rarely the ones who do stupid things like
>plant bombs. Similarly, in wartime situations, the press often report that
>10 were killed by the bomb, including 3 civilians - civilians are presumably
>not making war.

>Peter Smith

>>SEH

Try reading about the "Shining Path"
in Peru.  

Or the "Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam"
in Sri Lanka. 

There are plenty of women in these organizations,
and they would make Adolf Eichmann look like
Florence Nightingale.

Talking about  Eichmann, there were plenty 
of women in his "SS" too.

Harikumar.
Xref: sparky soc.men:17141 soc.women:17216
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: [Pet Peeves] What irritates you or your partner?
Date: 30 Sep 1992 17:49:13 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

grey@bnr.ca (Bryan Miller) writes:
>|> 
>|> In a previous apartment I had the toilet seat rigged so that it
>|> would suddenly come slamming down.  Boy you should've seen then jump!

>Hey, what were you doing watching? :)

Watching?  Hell, I was *helping*.	:-)
							--  Michal
Xref: sparky soc.men:17236 alt.sex:31663 alt.feminism:1911
From: jgh1+@pitt.edu (John G Hardie)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.sex,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Choice for men: moving beyond anti-feminism
Date: 2 Oct 92 17:13:16 GMT
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Sep30.180518.12856@microsoft.com> ericbr@microsoft.com (Eric Brown) writes:
[...]
>All the ones I've heard of cause
>irreversible sterility in a substantial minority of those who take it (e.g., 
>gossypol).
[...]
>... sterility or death.)

Another side effect I've heard bandied about is impotence.  This seems
to me like a particularly effective form of birth control, but it's
not likely to make the company a big profit.

Think of it, impotence, permanent sterility and death - I'd say that
method is approaching 100% effective. ;-)

Regards,
John



-- 
jgh1@vm1.cis.pitt.edu

	Give me chastity and continency, but do not give them yet.

Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (Rini Clarkberg)
Subject: Re: Violent Di Batters Charles
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 19:20:56 GMT

rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:
>slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:

>> The National Enquirer?  Lady Colin Campbell?  Come on, Robert, you've got 
>> to be joking.......
 
>  Why is he joking? Over the particular sources he uses, or over
>the idea that a woman can be abusive to her husband.

May I be presumptous enough to answer for Sue Larsen?  Since she
specifically names the *sources* in her post (with question marks
after them), it was clear to me that she had a problem with the
particular *sources* Robert was using.

rini
Xref: sparky soc.men:17021 alt.dads-rights:2389
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda (Was: Value of...)
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 18:31:57 GMT

In article <BvHJvK.Fx@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
)In article <717917196@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
)
)>I wondered if Catharine A. MacKinnon became a different person,
)
)A lot of people tend to wonder this, I think.  That's when they start
)to read what MacKinnon actually writes, and not the thrice-revomited
)pap that people like Gazit and Vidiguris and Dyer pass off as her
)writing.

I'm certainly no friend or fan of McKinnon.  However, I certainly do
encourage people to read the original sources (when they can find them, not
always easy outside the net, as I've found on occasion.)

I'm not sure why Mr. Pierce thinks what I wrote is 're-vomitted pap' - his
cognet intellectual criticism of my post in the above phrase has left me
quite baffled :->.  I certainly like my posts, and put a fair amount of
thought into most of them.  I do think it is a good idea for people to read
what they are criticizing and respond to it directly whenever possible - I
wish Mr. Pierce would follow his on advice here.
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz)
Subject: Re: Value of Womens' Lives (was: _Backlash_)
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 04:33:53 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.165249.19173@cbfsb.cb.att.com>
colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:
>
>These was a case some time ago with either a disaster or a crime
>where a guy wound up killing himself because he "hadn't done enough".
>Does this ring a bell with anyone?

Yep -- here it is.

________________________

MARC LEPINE'S OTHER VICTIMS

Paul McKeague (of the Windsor Star)
The Vancouver Sun, July 19 1991
==============================

OTTAWA.  Marc Lepin's Montreal rampage has claimed another 
victim.  This one was a man.

A young engineer, who was at the Ecole Polytechnique during 
Lepine's shooting spree, could not live with the knowledge that he 
had done nothing to stop the murder of 14 women.  He killed himself 
last summer, half a year after the massacre of Dec. 6, 1989.

The information was presented [last June] in Halifax to a convention 
of security officers by Richard Aube, head of the Polytechnique's 
security....Aube said that there was a point where Lepine's gun 
jammed.  At that moment, when the death toll stood at six, there 
might have been a chance to stop him, Aube said.  "I wasn't there, 
but I can say someone could have intervened."  No one did.

When I read about it, I thought immediately of an engineering 
student named Lucien who talked to me outside the Polytechnique a 
few days after the killings.  He kept trying to explain why he and the 
other students sat at their desks while Lepine walked out into the 
hall, reloaded and continued his killing spree.  The guilt Lucien and 
other male students felt was relentless.  And the media didn't make 
it any easier. 

Lepine had raged against feminists.  Many columnists and 
representatives of women's organizations painted the killings as a 
symptom of widespread male hostility to women.  One columnist 
took the argument one step farther: the failure of the slain women's 
male classmates to come to their aid was a sign of how little regard 
men had for women, she argued.

The man who committed suicide last sumer left a note saying that he 
"could not accept that as a man he had been there and hadn't done 
anything about it," Aube said.

Young men, who had always assumed they would act like heroes in a 
crisis, had found themselves hiding like frightened animals as Lepine 
gunned down their fellow students.  Others, like Lucien, had been too 
stunned to do anything at all.

After withdrowing from their friends and community after the death 
of their only son, the man's parents killed themselves two weeks ago.

On December 6, Canadians will once again honor the memory of the 
young women Lepine cut down.  We should also spare a thought for 
the witnesses who survived, for the men who failed to be heroes.  
They and their families were victims too.
From: dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Violence && Freedom (was Philosophy for Gordon )
Date: 28 Sep 92 17:30:32 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <3804@unisql.UUCP>, wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie) writes:
> In article <1992Sep26.130832.19088@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
> >Freedom and violence are antithetical

Yeah, right.  I bet you're the same dweeb school counselor/teacher who tried
to convince me that it was wrong to fight back when someone picks on you.
"If you just ignore him, he'll leave you alone..."  Funny how it never seemed
to work out that way.  And the couple of times I got pushed to far and *did*
fight back, I was left alone after that.  Gee, there couldn't be a connection
there, could there?


> 	Isn't it sometimes necessary to respond to attempts to restrict 
> your freedom with violence sufficient to ensure its continued existence?

-- 

Dan S.
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,soc.singles
From: tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: Book Rec.: _Bodies: Overcoming the Tyranny of Perfection_
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 17:23:05 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.045750.7592@samba.oit.unc.edu> Bathsheba.Grossman@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Bathsheba Grossman) writes:
>In article <0s_p3rd.sheaffer@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>>
>>I think that just about every woman wants to be with a man who is "more
>>male" than she is. However, the big problem for many modern women is:
>>having moved so far in the direction of "maleness" herself, the number
>>of men noticeably "more male" than her is unfortunately rather small. 
>
>Actually, most of them have those Reverend Steely Scepters of Eternal
>Y-Chromosome Power, which decide the issue conclusively in my limited mind.
>
>I say, bring on the newts!  They've all got 'em, and someone around here had
>better get in touch with their femininity or I'll never again eat anything
>but lunchmeat ends on day-old bread.  This survey plainly left out all the
>*real women, who don't bother to reinforce their sex-role-play by taking
>part in studies about it, and are totally comfy switch-hitting.
>
>People I know who are making their own way agree (upon inquisition) that
>they could for sure use a wife. Big muscles and important hair are fine,
>but I'll settle for any kind of genderblender who gives my welfare some
>priority.  What I can't use is a sexually retarded person, stuck in
>some fantasy male role, who'll expect me to put their comfort ahead of my
>own work, in the guise of respecting my femininity.

Sure, a wife would be handy--especially someone who would be willing to
help me eat all these apple pies and the great big pot of vegetarian
chili that I've just made.  (Bad habit I've got--I like to cook, but 
(in keeping with my general perception of overkill as a philisophical
ideal) I tend to cook more than I can manage to eat myself--and now that
I've picked up a 12-quart Farberware stewpot, this is probably just 
going to get worse (what am I going to do with a gallon of real chocolate
pudding that I'm now getting the urge to make?).)

Actually, I always tend to wonder at the "need for a wife" claim--how
does one manage to make tasks like cooking, laundry, cleaning, and the
like be so time-consuming that one needs someone else to do them?
(Well, OK, having offspring would do it--but I'm planning to avoid
that particular problem.) 

Trygve
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: ISO Bi-Fem and Girlfriend
Date: 30 Sep 92 18:01:33 GMT
Reply-To: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <BvDzou.7BH@world.std.com> apl@world.std.com (Anthony P Lawrence) writes:
>Are we not men ?  

	We are devo.

Xref: sparky soc.men:17079 alt.sex:31280 alt.feminism:1768
From: rs87+@andrew.cmu.edu (Rebecca Ann Stallings)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.sex,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Choice for men: moving beyond anti-feminism
Date: 29 Sep 92 10:57:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.sem_QgO00YV9M4zfEh
	<717618088@lear.cs.duke.edu>
Organization: Sophomore, Architecture, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

>>Whether you call it sexist or not, the
>>pharmaceutical companies are working harder to get it 'just right' for men
>>than they ever did for women.
> 
>Last month feminists blamed the pharmaceutical companies for not
>working hard enough on a male pill and called them sexist; now 
>you give the opposite claim.  Can't you keep your story straight?
   That's not the point the first poster was trying to make.  In the
1960s, pharmaceutical companies went ahead and released the Pill even
though it was rather dangerous.  They've made modifications since, but
some brands and formulations still have serious side effects.  By
contrast, it seems that companies are unwilling to release a male pill
until it's absolutely perfect, not wanting to inconvenience or endanger
men.
        ---'Becca at Carnegie Mellon
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: nissim@mary.fordham.edu (Leonard J. Nissim)
Subject: Re: Political Correctness
Organization: Fordham University
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Distribution: usa
Keywords: political correctness PC P.C.
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 14:15:00 GMT
X-Posted-From: mary.fordham.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Sep29.201429.27066@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>, 
me@isnext19.msu.edu (My Account) writes...
^^                   ^^^^^^^^^^^
[garbage deleted]

If you don't have the guts to use your own name in a statement of political
views, then don't post. 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leonard J. Nissim  (nissim@mary.fordham.edu)   
Disclaimer:  "I speak only for myself."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: charleen@ADS.COM (Charleen Bunjiovianna)
Subject: Re: Aspirin, heart disease, and women?
Organization: The Original Estrogen-Crazed Lust Bunnies
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 21:27:39 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.182219.8723@midway.uchicago.edu> scb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.043611.18661@unixg.ubc.ca> schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz) writes:
>>
>>The last time I heard this bizarre claim, I did a little digging on
>>Medline.  What I found was about 20 studies on the link between heart
>>[deleted, unfortunately]
>>That this is an urban myth seems the obvious conclusion.  If anyone has
>>a source for the story I'd be interested in seeing it.
>
>I believe that your MedLine search wasn't too thorough ... there have been
>large, controlled, clinical trials of aspirin in heart attack prevention
>that have been published in the New England Journal of Medicine (which is
>where your newspaper story probably got its info.).  

No, no, no.  Go back and read Stewart's article again.  What he said was
the "bizarre claim" is that no women were included in studies on the link
between aspirin and heart attack prevention.  He wasn't referring to the
efficacy of aspirin in heart attack prevention at all.

Charleen

--
In an Orkin Exterminating Company survey of what pests Pittsburghers fear
most, 1.3% named their spouses and kids.   -- Wall Street Journal, May 1988
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek)
Subject: Re: Violent Di Batters Charles
Keywords: Poor Little Princess!
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 92 05:09:13 GMT

wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie) writes:

>	No, because the National Enquirer also claims that some woman
>in Iowa is pregnant by an extra-terrestial and that garlic cures cancer.

Are you implying that garlic is NOT a miracle cure?  I, and other garlic
lovers, are very offended.

--
Paul Ciszek, pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu | No nation was ever drunk when wine was
                                   | cheap.   -- Thomas Jefferson
Xref: sparky soc.men:17082 alt.sex:31290 alt.feminism:1772
From: rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.sex,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Choice for men: moving beyond anti-feminism
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:17:53
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge Mass., USA
	<717618088@lear.cs.duke.edu> <sem_QgO00YV9M4zfEh@andrew.cmu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: underprize.think.com
In-reply-to: rs87+@andrew.cmu.edu's message of 29 Sep 92 10:57:48 GMT

In article <sem_QgO00YV9M4zfEh@andrew.cmu.edu> rs87+@andrew.cmu.edu (Rebecca Ann Stallings) writes:

      That's not the point the first poster was trying to make.  In the
   1960s, pharmaceutical companies went ahead and released the Pill even
   though it was rather dangerous.  They've made modifications since, but
   some brands and formulations still have serious side effects.  By
   contrast, it seems that companies are unwilling to release a male pill
   until it's absolutely perfect, not wanting to inconvenience or endanger
   men.

Pharmaceutical companies are increasingly unwilling to release ANY
medication that has any significant side effects, for fear of being
sued.
--
ames >>>>>>>>>  |	Robert Krawitz <rlk@think.com>	245 First St.
bloom-beacon >  |think!rlk				Cambridge, MA  02142
harvard >>>>>>  .	Thinking Machines Corp.		(617)234-2116

Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- write league@prep.ai.mit.edu
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women