HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sue@ariel.its.unimelb.EDU.AU (Sue McPherson)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: 59cents in the dollar
Date: 14 Apr 92 04:20:25 GMT
Organization: Software Contracts Group, University of Melbourne, Australia

In article <1992Apr13.031523.4578@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:

>I'm not disputing that my statements were a little too narrow.  It's
>hard to summarize reality in so few words.  But there is a legitimate
>reason to dispute the claims made by feministas (no TYPO) that women
>earn much less than men while working the same jobs.  But that is
>really not their claim - they claim that working women make less money
>than working men - and do not account for the positions or time
>worked.  

While I agree that the 59cents in the dollar (or whatever) figure does not
account for positions or time worked, it is interesting to note that a 
survey of graduates from Melbourne University in 1990 showed that male
graduates received several thousand dollars more per year than female 
graduates from the SAME COURSE. You can't claim the discrepancy is based on 
anything other than gender because admission is based on high school 
performance (the cut-off scores to Melbourne Uni are very high) with the 
only special admission programs being for students from disadvantaged
backgrounds (this means being aboriginal or coming from a 'disadvantaged'
school or family). 

What is particularly interesting is that the same information was gathered
for 1991 graduates and it was found that the difference between male & female
salaries had all but disappeared. My personal theory for this is that
generally speaking male students are more confident that female students and
in job interviews are better/more pushy about getting a good pay deal, while
female students are more aware of their lack of experience and take what
is offered. As the recession affected companies they were no longer in a
position to give (nor did they feel any need to) more than the base 
salary to a graduate with no experience.

anyway thats my 59cents worth!

Sue McPherson
sue@ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au
From: learn@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (William Vajk (igloo))
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Smelling The Roses (was Re: Companies can afford it, right?)
Date: 10 Apr 92 14:15:24 GMT
Reply-To: learn@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (William Vajk (igloo))
Organization: Dares No Organization Like Dis Organization

In article <34146@unix.SRI.COM> maslak@unix.SRI.COM (Valerie Maslak) writes:

>Wes thinks that pesepctive somes with age. Maybe so, age and
>experience, anyway.

>There's one facet of wharfie's arguments thast has been missed so
>far, but that many friends of mine are all too aware of: 4 out of 5
>startups fail.

I am not aware of the current numbers, but used to be the Small Business
Administration reported statistics, and the number used to be over 90%
when I was making inquiry some years back.

As for age and experience, they are merely contributing factors, not
overwhelmingly controlling the thought process. I highly recommend
"A Tree Grows In Brooklyn" to those who doubt.

>There's something to be said for putting time and energy into a 
>family and into relationships. 

Indeed, there's a LOT to be said.

Bill Vajk
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Dworkin and MacKinnon Rule!
Date: 16 Apr 92 00:17:45 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Apr15.194042.2290@watserv1.waterloo.edu> lstewart@watserv1.waterloo.edu (L. Stewart -- IS      Office 1058) writes:
>
>Dworkin and her ilk have neither the charisma nor the popular
>support to impliment their dysfunctions on society. Hitler was
>enormously popular and spoke to an entire nation in a time of
>crisis. MacKinnon and the censor-gang speak to a fraction of the 
>population and haven't managed too much popularity. Let us hope     
>that they haven't managed the putsch that launches a thousand
>repressive laws, and "actions". 
>

I wish this were true! MacKinnon is the one who INVENTED the very
"crime" of "sexual harassment" (see a fascinating article on this
in the January issue of Reason magazine). She has managed to
force her personal agenda into law throughout North America without winning a
single election. And you say that RadFems like Dworkin and
MacKinnon have no power!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-- 
  
        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: stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Men Are Not Cost Effective
Date: 9 Apr 92 11:42:08 GMT
Distribution: na

gross@befvax.uchicago.edu writes
+ In article <8130@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>, stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (Char  
Aznabul) writes:
+ >setenv SARCASM ON
+ >
+ >If women don't want to get pregnant, they shouldn't have sex.
+ >
+ ...........or get raped.

Oh, come on Leon. What percentage of women who are raped get pregnant?

That is a straight question...

K'Char
From: creilly@maths.tcd.ie (Colman Reilly)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Japanese Women's Lib
Date: 14 Apr 92 23:07:03 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Maths, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland.

In <1992Apr14.174404.1744@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> fine@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (victoria.fineberg) writes:

>Disclaimers: I kept only the parts of the original posting which I am
>             responding to.  I tried to preserve meanings of different
>	     statements, rather than taking words out of context.

Ditto. 

>In article <ngxjk-=.sheaffer@netcom.com>, sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>> 
>> In any case, keep this in mind: the feminism we are so propagandized
>> by here is a PURELY American phenomenon. There are women who call
>> themselves "feminists" elsewhere, but the intensity
>> and degree of male-bashing we are accustomed to exists NOWHERE else.

Don't forget that a lot of your stuff spills over into our media.

>> In Europe, Asia, wherever, women are MUCH more into the "feminine"
>> traits that feminists despise, and in Europe feminism is regarded
>> as a tired old 1960s idea, like the New Left and LSD.

Not really. It's just less strident, possibly.


>> What is an
>> undeniable fact of biology is that males are, ON AVERAGE, more
>> aggressive then women. (I assume that I do not need to explain
>> to you about two populations having different average values
>> of a given trait, but with considerable overlap). Human experience
>> shows that it IS possible to build a stable male/female relationship
>> with the male playing the more aggressive and dominant role. It
>> does NOT give us any examples of the reverse, and there are 
>> excellent reasons for believing that it is not a long-term
>> stable model.

>ON AVERAGE, men are more aggressive then women (I agree with you
>based on personal observations rather than hard data).  Whether
>the only happy stability can be achieved by men dominating? - I
>would argue.  Is it necessary that somebody is dominating? - it
>depends on the meanings of aggressiveness and domination, it is
>possible to dominate from a position of weakness.

"Undeniable fact of biology"? I don't think so. What the above means that
males that have developed within the social framework that exists are on
average more agressive than females.

Males are expected to be more agressive than females.

People are pressured to conform to the expectations of society.

Therefore . . 

As for stability depending on male domination, human experience provides
many examples of relationships where the wife was dominant over the
husband. Scattered through Irish and English folklore are numerous examples
where the wife wore the trousers.

The dominance of men in marriage in the past was I'm afraid probably more a
product of men's egos rather than womanly submittal.

Colman
--
----------------------------
Colman Reilly (creilly@maths.tcd.ie)
c/o School of Mathematics,18.05 Westland Row,Trinity College,Dublin.
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor)
Subject: Re: Companies can afford it, right?
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 03:17:05 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.202337.24380@panix.com> pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich) writes:

>But seriously, if, as a society, we make it not in the economic
>interests of intelligent, ambitious, educated & hardworking women
>who want lives that extend beyond childcare and and housework to
>maintain those lives _and_ have children, then fewer of them are
>going to do so over the long haul. 

To say "we as a society" is not enligthning, because there are so many
individuals in it, each with his own world view and priorities. 
A business owner may need the money for something which he values
more than continuing the employment of someone who is less productive. He
may need it, for example, to help paying expensive medical costs for
him(her)self or his close family, and I dont see anything bad in 
it. A person's NEED for employment does not automatically make someone 
else obliged to give it to him.

Dov
From: stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: SNUFF FILMS sighted in TIME MAGAZINE!!! (Dworkin and MacKinnon, too)
Date: 14 Apr 92 23:03:11 GMT
Distribution: na

Cindy Kandolf writes

+ There is, i think, an obvious difference between soft-core porn, in which
+ all parties involved are (or for the sake of the picture pretending to be)
+ enjoying themselves, and hard-core porn, where violence is involved and
+ not all involved are (seem to be) enjoying themselves.
+ 
+ Films in which one person appears to be murdered are pretty clearly in
+ the second category.  We're in agreement so far, i hope?

So any movie graphically depicting a murder is hard-core porn? You mean
movies like _Terminator_ and _RoboCop_?

Please define "hard-core porn" and "soft-core porn". The "industry" definition
as *I* understand it is:

hard-core: genitilia, fluids and penetration is portrayed.

soft-core: nekkid people, lots of T&A, and penetration portrayed in a way
           not visible.

+ Now, maybe the reason you hear so little about soft-core porn is that
+ most people don't feel it does any harm, and so ignore it.  And maybe

Tell that to Dworkin and McKinnon. If you didn't know, their law model
states that male-male porn is to be banned because it degrades women.

K'Char
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Japanese Women's Lib
Date: 11 Apr 92 03:38:59 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Labs, Livermore CA

In article <r#qj-dl.sheaffer@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) 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?
::: 
:   And how do American males feel about hell freezing over? That will
:   probably happen first. I spent two weeks working in Japan last
:   summer. It brought back memories of my childhood in the 1950s:
:   traditional gender roles are practically *never* crossed. Most
:   women are not particularly serious about any career, and as soon
:   as a woman marries and becomes a mother, she leaves the workforce
:   until her children are grown. And that is in spite of a *much*
:   higher cost of living there than here. Of course, taxes are much
:   lower there; Japanese engineers are paying an income
:   tax rate of only 3%!!!!!!!

	My understanding is that companies there tend to fire women who
get married and have children. Japan still has a long way to go in the
field of feminism.

:   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.

	But who gets the financial resources?

	And how can one be sure that this is a case of seeing what one
wants to see?

	It is true that Japanese workers are probably worked too hard;
I'm sure a lot of Japanese men might prefer more time with their
families.

	Looking at this account, I can tell what Robert Sheaffer's
ideal of womanhood is -- women subservient to him and like-minded men
such as Chuck Herrick. To exalt the ideal of women being submissive to
men is clearly a form of misogyny. It is just like exalting the ideal
of "good" black people as those who are submissive to white people. It
is rather surprising to realize that the two sexes are actually very
much alike, at least mentally, so that's why expecting women to be
subservient to men is unfair to both sexes.

	This is a remarkable view for a self-proclaimed Libertarian.
From: stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Is this a case of sex discrimination?
Date: 7 Apr 92 18:46:17 GMT
Distribution: na

Beverly Huntsberger writes

+ 	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. 

Both of which can be bought off if some of the fat cats in both movements
are invited to join the other fat cats in the establishment.

K'Char
Xref: sparky soc.men:8143 soc.women:8715 talk.politics.misc:17242 alt.rush-limbaugh:1087 alt.politics.correct:3600
From: jan@oliveb.ATC.Olivetti.Com (Jan Parcel)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: Men Are Not Cost Effective
Date: 8 Apr 92 01:26:52 GMT
Reply-To: jan@oas.olivetti.com
Followup-To: soc.men,soc.women,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct

In article <1992Apr7.153752.20990@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (nathan engle) writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.200503.9860@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@umbc4.umbc.edu 
>(Alex S. Crain) writes:
>>	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?
>
>    Strange, I thought that the article was classically extremist - 
>first outline a problem in simplistic terms, and then use statistics to
>try and blame all instances of the problem on some unrelated and probably
>innocent third party. I wonder if she's in favor of a negotiated compromise
>about who should pay in light of the fact that she benefits from locking
>up these dangerous criminals just as much as the rest of us.

Are y'all serious?

Face it -- if you want to "simplify" about white men, you're extremist, if
you want to "simplify" about black people or women or anybody else, you're 
conservative.

If you consider pregnancy-related absences an abnormal expense in business, 
you're conservative, if you consider alcoholism or heart-attack absences an 
abnormal expense in business, you're extremist.  

Time is the only factor in deciding which label to apply.
From: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: SNUFF FILMS sighted in TIME MAGAZINE!!! (Dworkin and MacKinnon, too)
Date: 16 Apr 92 22:41:58 GMT
Reply-To: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Organization: Florida State University, but I don't speak for them

In article <1992Apr15.194042.2290@watserv1.waterloo.edu> lstewart@watserv1.waterloo.edu (L. Stewart -- IS      Office 1058) writes:
>First off, while there are some people who call themselves
>"feminist" who wish to create a platform both socially and
>politically to limit the freedoms of others, they are not
>I believe in the majority.

This is a very common belief.  However, consider this letter:

    I enjoyed Molly Ivins' _Sex Bullies_ (Playboy, June).  In an 
    otherwise excellent article, however, Ivins makes a sweeping
    and inaccurate statement.  When discussing proposed antipornography
    statutes, whe states that "legal censorship is by no means a majority
    position among feminists--few approve of pornography, but then, few 
    approve of censorship, either."

    The sad truth is that most leaders of the feminist movement _have_ 
    endorsed the concept of antipornography legislation.  For example,
    in 1984, the National Organization for Women passed the following
    resolution:

    "NOW finds that pornography is a factor in creating and maintaining
     sex as a basis for discrimination.  Pornography, as distinct from
     erotica, is a systematic practice of exploitation and subordination
     based on sex which differentially harms women and children. . . .
     Pornography violates the civil rights of women and children."

    In keeping with NOW's admonition that its chapters implement this
    resolution, many have done so.  When a 1989 anti-pornography 
    ordinance was challenged (and subsequently ruled unconstitutional)
    in Washington, Seattle NOW submitted a brief in support of the
    ordinance.  Seattle NOW has repeatedly urged the Seattle city council
    to adopt a resolution declaring topless dancing and "other pornographic
    businesses" to be "harmful and a civil rights issue."  Numerous other
    NOW chapters are engaged in similar efforts.

    Since the Northwest Feminist Anti-Censorship Taskforce (NW-FACT) was
    founded in 1989, it has encountered cnsiderable hostility from the
    mainstream feminist movement.  We have learned that endorsement of 
    some level of legal censorship of sexually explicit materials _is_,
    tragically, the majority position among feminists.

    Meanwhile, a small but growing network of us is working for the day
    when most women and men will see the dangerous fallacy of antipornography
    ordinances and their underlying moralistic, antisex ideology.

        Barbara Dority, Co-Chair
        Northwest Feminist Anti-Censorship Taskforce
        Seattle, Washington

-EMP
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Angela Davis:  What's she up to these days...
Date: 13 Apr 92 21:24:17 GMT
Reply-To: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <3537@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us> shomer@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us writes:
>Wharfie, would you have made the same comment about the (white) French 
>intellectuals who fought in the Resistance? ("Camus? Sartre? Ah, they're 

	Why, sure.  Must be my impish sense of humor.

>Followups don't belong in soc.men; perhaps in talk.politics.misc?

	Why not? I'm a man, I'm following up, and I don't carry
talk groups.  
					You don't have to be a 
					weatherman to know which way 
					the wind blows.
From: johnston@fys.ruu.nl (Helen Johnston)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Japanese Women's Lib
Date: 16 Apr 92 10:43:10 GMT
Organization: Physics Department, University of Utrecht,  The Netherlands

In article <xgzj20m.sheaffer@netcom.com>, sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
|> In article <1992Apr14.230703.20741@maths.tcd.ie> creilly@maths.tcd.ie (Colman Reilly) writes:
|> >
|> >"Undeniable fact of biology"? I don't think so. What the above means that
|> >males that have developed within the social framework that exists are on
|> >average more agressive than females.
|> >
|> >Males are expected to be more agressive than females.
|> 
|> This has been documented as a "fact of biology" for at least twenty
|> years. The best proofs of this is in the research of Dr. John Money
|> of the Johns Hopkins Medical School. Females that were accidentally
|> exposed to overdoses of male hormones _in utero_ display much greater
|> agressive behavior, rough play, and increased emphasis on career
|> pursuits vs. home life. This has been published in several books
|> under his name, and numerous scientific papers. The role of male
|> and female hormones simply CANNOT be 'wished away' as contrary to
|> egalitarian dogma. Hell, for centuries it's been known that farm
|> animals that are castrated become feminized in their behavior. Yet
|> people still argue that sex hormones have NO influence on behavior!
|> 
|> -- 
|>   
Anne Fausto-Sterling, in her book _Myths of Gender_, has a critique of this
work. She points out that all of these females exposed to male hormones
in utero had parents, family, doctors etc. who KNEW about the exposure. Not
exactly a blind study. Further, if I recall correctly, the evidence of
tomboyish behaviour etc. were entirely from parent's descriptions, with the
control sample being the mother's own REMEMBERED behaviour, or a sister's
behaviour. Again, the describer had full knowledge of the medical condition. 
No, I don't think this is incontrovertible proof of sex hormones influencing 
behaviour. Not that it couldn't be true, just that it hasn't been proven yet.

Helen Johnston
johnston@fys.ruu.nl
Newsgroups: soc.men
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 23:48:22 -0400 
From: Michel Fougeres <mf0w+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: You want to win(Men's rights and Women's rights).




Excerpts From Captions of netnews.soc.women:
16-Apr-92  Re: You want to win(Men's r..  Lisa Corsetti@zeppelin.l (850)    
>    I walked alone through the blackest night
>        I felt the cold I felt the bite
>            I took the high road, But it ain't right
>    ...It's just the low road in disguise

The above is what the French call "broyer du noir"
 ("to pulverize blackness" could sort of render it)

         
                   
       Oh! la belle affaire              Drei Tage war der Vater krank. 
          de ne m'appeler ni Ferns              Jetzt trinkt er wieder...
           ni Farnkraut
         mais Fouge`res !                       Gott sei Dank !
Xref: sparky soc.men:8547 soc.women:9074 talk.abortion:15617 alt.abortion.inequity:913
From: bev@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu (Beverly Huntsberger)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: pro-choice == pro-(womens' only) choice?
Date: 16 Apr 92 19:56:41 GMT
Organization: Univ. of South Carolina, Columbia

In <1992Apr11.164353.8478@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>That's the way the law treats us, at least. Walking wallets. How empowering.
>How consciousness-raising. Ptui.

>								- Kevin

	Kevin, the law is never empowering or consciousness-raising.
	Unless you're one of the few who create it. Let's see
	if we can't change this country so that we all take
	part in truly defining the law.

	I hope that you find the will and th way to tell them
	that you have the choice to do with your wallet as you
	wish. Straight and simple. That's empowerment.

	You talk about "my wallet", but don't you really mean
	"my money"? Think about this: "Who's face is on it"?

	(A man once reminded his friends that their money
	was made by the government, so they might as well
	give it back to the government.)

	Bev

	Have a good weekend.
-- 
--
Bev Huntsberger       bev@grover.csd.scarolina.edu
University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC   29208
--