HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Duck and Jive (was Re: Pre-Sex Contract )
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 10:13:16 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.030838.21797@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
)
)I wonder if there's anyone on the net who hasn't seen this
)dumb story half a dozen times, faithfully posted by Hillel 
)every time certain subjects are mentioned.

How can you doubt it?  There are undoubtedly people on the net who haven't
even seen it *once*, much less dozens of times.  In fact, the answer to
the question 'Are there any people on the net who have/havent XXXXXX'
is almost surely yes! :-)

(BTW, I do get a kick out of Hillel's story and don't agree with your
characterization of it.  IMO).

Maybe what you need is to write your own 'stock' answer to Hillel's
'stock' story, and repost it as you feel it's needed.  (If you feel just
posting a number as you humorously suggest,  or a ftp reference, I suppose
you can do that, too :-)).

Newsgroups: soc.men
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Muffy's Choice (was: Muffy becomes <debatable>)
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 17:34:10 GMT

<1h8aufINNbs3@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
><1992Dec22.172028.1@d0gslb.fnal.gov> holzman@d0gslb.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman) writes:
>><MUFFY.92Dec21182007@remarque.berkeley.edu>, 
>>muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

>>> Nope.  I consider abortion to be *one way* of "dealing with the
>>> consequences."
>
>>If aborting the fetus is a perfectly fine way for a woman to "deal with the
>>consequences," why is a parallell for men not a perfectly fine way for men to
>>"deal with the consequences?"
>
>We haven't seen 'a parallell' yet.
>
>We have seen many things, but we haven't seen a parallell yet.

Adrienne, your spell-fllame demonstrates your impressive spelling tallents
-- but if you had deeper analytical abilities, you'd have seen, right
in front of your face, a couple of parallels within 'parallell.'


>Got one to show us?

You've seen it many times:  a man can say, well before the legal 
deadline for abortion (or even in the 1st trimester), that he 
relinquishes all parental rights and responsibilities, and he can 
put up the cost of an abortion.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Xref: sparky soc.men:22006 alt.feminism:6718
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Date: 2 Jan 93 16:54:09 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
| ...
| 4) Is not it interesting that when women are the losing side (e.g.
|    more men learn math), the default assumption is that society
|    is to be blamed, and the poor weak women need some compensation,
|    but when men are the losing side, the "pro equality people" are
|    ready with long explanation why it is just biology...

I'm not saying that the possible social causes of the difference
should not be investigated.  But the biological element should
not be discounted either.  In other words, there's probably not
enough hard information around -- except, of course, if you want
to use the issue for propaganda.
-- 

 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: aaldrich@encore.com (Al Aldrich)
Subject: Re: shaving
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 15:10:26 GMT

wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie) writes:


>	I'm not sure that this is an appropriate posting for soc.men,
>since it doesn't mention abortion or feminism or how women only get
>70 cents on the dollar, but I hope you'll forgive me.

absotively..:-)


>	What's your favorite shaving cream?  For years I used Barbasol,
>but I've switched to Edge.  I shave with my father's old double-edge 
>Gillette, both as a link to the past and because it's much smoother
>and more comfortable then any plastic flexy rotating-head throwaway I've
>tried.  I used to use Wilkinson Sword blades, but now all I can ever
>find are Gillette Blue...  Were can I get good razor blades these days?

Personally, I wear a beard because I hate to shave. I do however shave
the neck and cheeks to conform to the `neatness' model which seems to be
required in the business environment. At any rate, I also use Edge as it
seems to reduce the number of nicks and cuts incurred in the process of
scraping hair off of my face. Ideally, I would not shave at all .. as a 
side note, my partner also prefers me unshaven as she hates `stubble burn'
which seems to be the inevitable consequence of shaving for her.
As to where to find good razor blades..I haven't a clue.

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

-- 
Al Aldrich aaldrich@encore.com 305-797-2335
"Mythology: The body of a primitive people's beliefs concerning its
origin, early history, heroes, deities and so forth, as distinguished
from the true accounts which it invents later." -- Ambrose Bierce
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Damned Articles
Date: 2 Jan 93 17:43:57
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1992Dec31.184502.9628@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com>
	<1993Jan2.170018.5582@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: gcf@panix.com's message of 2 Jan 93 17:00:18 GMT

In article <1993Jan2.170018.5582@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
[about posting the rejection notices]
>bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
>| I think that would be too much like posting private E-mail, though I must
>| admit I was tempted to do just that when I was still reading soc.feminism
>| and experienceing some severe problems with the moderation there.

>I suppose if people are going to make a public issue of
>the rejection, the permission of the moderators might be
>obtained.

As far as I'm concerned, people are free to post any rejection that I
send to them.  I am not, however, speaking for the other moderators
here.  I am also not giving permission for posting of discussion of
postings, just the rejections themselves.  Personally, I think it would
be amusing.

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                      | ~Can you tell me how much bleeding/it
muffy@mica.berkeley.edu            |  takes to fill a word with meaning and/
"amorous inclinations"? Aha! I'm   |  how much how much death it takes/to give
not "not straight," I'm *inclined*.|  a slogan breath?~ - Bruce Cockburn
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: How come?
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 18:04:47 GMT

In article <4439@unisql.UUCP> wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie) writes:
)
)	How come if you go out to lunch with a bunch of men, you get 
)the check and it's, like, forty bucks so you go "Right, 10 bucks each,
)I'll leave the tip" but if you go out to lunch with a bunch of *women*
)it's, like, "Well, *I* had the chopped liver and the small ice tea so
)I owe $4.97" and "*I* didn't have any dessert so I only owe $3.23" and
)so on until you're waiting for someone to whip out the ol' Hewlett-Packard
)with 59 programmable functions and figure it out to the 9th decimal
)place?  Why is that, huh?

Actually, I used to do the HP bit when I was younger, but it was just
too much work and I stopped.

BTW - the official inflamatory answer to your question is 'It's because
men are sooooo rich, and women are sooooo pooooooooooor'. :-) (??)
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: How come?
Date: 23 Dec 92 22:49:11 GMT
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <1992Dec23.153653.5745@news.cs.indiana.edu> alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu (Amy Young Leith) writes:
>I don't normally do this, nor do the people I know do it.  It's

	Stop invalidating my experience!!!!!

	:-) :-) :-) :-)

Xref: sparky soc.men:22056 alt.abortion.inequity:6259 alt.feminism:6762
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited
Date: 3 Jan 1993 23:54:05 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:

>In article <1i4ul0INNjf6@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>Would you be satisfied with paternal notification of the child's birth?
>>I would have no problem with that with regards to privacy considerations,
>>since the birth is already a matter of the public record.  (I have problems
>>with requiring additional governmental paperwork, but that is not an 
>>direct inequity issue.)  However, requiring a woman to notify anyone of 
>>her pregnancy is a violation of her privacy.

>If she wants 18 years of child support, then the father should be notified
>of the pregnancy. Otherwise the man has no say. After birth, all she has to
>do is to take hime to court, it is too late a joint decision. 

The father has no say whether or not he is notified of the pregnancy.
As the law currently stands, one conception has occurred he is obligated
to support the child if it is born (unless he and the mother *both*
agree to put the child up for adoption.)

>The notion that the pregnancy is not the fathers business, but the child after
>birth is is a bit odd. If she wants to raise the child herself, she need not
>notify the father at all. If she wants child support, then the father has 
>a need and a right to know about the pregnancy.

No, he has a need and a right to know about the birth.

> Unless, as you seem to feel,
>it really does not matter what the father feels/wants/can afford, the women
>has every right to make the decisions for him, after all, the idiot unzipped
>his zipper. 

That is exactly what I feel.  The woman has a right to make decisions 
regarding the outcome of the pregnancy, because it occurs within her body.
And if the child is born then the father *is* obliged to support. Regardless
of what he feels/wants/can afford.




-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Duck and Jive (was Re: Pre-Sex Contract )
Date: 22 Dec 92 03:08:38 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

| (Kenn Barry) writes:
| >	Let me put it in plain language, Kevin: if you father a kid you
| >don't want, you've got my sympathy up to the point where I and my fellow
| >taxpayers end up paying for it. 

gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
| If what you really care about is the tax payer (fat chance...),
| then there is the solution that Carole suggested long ago:
| 
| %A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away ....

I wonder if there's anyone on the net who hasn't seen this
dumb story half a dozen times, faithfully posted by Hillel 
every time certain subjects are mentioned.

Not that that's any different from his other stories.  True,
it saves trouble writing -- and reading -- but why stop
halfway?

Hillel, can I suggest you number them?  It would save a lot
of bandwidth.  Then we could have "gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) 
writes: #11! #11!"  Okay, 11 is optimistic, but you know
what I mean....
-- 

 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.feminism
From: "Amy Young Leith" <alyoung@cherry.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 16:42:34 -0500


>rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes:
>
>>For every woman that is the victim of violence there are three men that
>>are the victims of violence.  Since "we" see a special need for action
>>against violence against women, but not against men, the natural conclusion
>>is that "we" feel that violence against a woman is more than three times
>>as serious as violence against a man.
>>
>>Do you not see that this sort of viewpoint is perceived as amounting to
>>saying, "Women are more important, more human than men.  Their hurts matter
>>more.  Women are entitled; men are not."

Given the statistics, there is a lot of sexism going on here in this issue. 

Violence against women is seen as a "bigger evil" perhaps because
women are still viewed as "unable" to protect themselves, or unfairly
"outranked" by men.  This is one possible explaination which is quite
sexist. 

The other could follow the logic that women do not victimize men as
much as men victimize women, therefore the latter is a "larger"
problem.  

amy
-- 
alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu for personal mail
			    All business mail to alyoung@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Dislcaimer:I only speak for myself.  Anyone who thinks differently is a fool.
			(This means NOT my employer!!)
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten)
Subject: Re: Utne Reader on Men and Women
Summary: Utne Reader (address)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 22:49:46 GMT

In article <01JAN93.12667972.0058@MUSIC.TCS.TULANE.EDU>, MD04MXS <MD04MXS@MUSIC.TCS.TULANE.EDU> writes:
> In article <1992Dec31.203415.11478@cbfsb.cb.att.com> colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:
> >The new Utne Reader (Jan/Feb 1993) has a collection of articles
> >under the header "Men & Women  Can we get along?  Should we
> >even try?"
> >
> >There are too many articles for me to start typing them in (besides
> >copyright and the fact that Utne Reader has a login on Usenet) but
> >I recommend the issue and look forward to any discussion.
> 
> Do you have their email address???
> 

      Griff Wigley
      Utne Reader
      1624 Harmon Place, Suite 330
      Minneapolis, MN  55403
      Voice: 612/338-5040
      Email: utnereader@igc.org

> >I'd be interested in any discussion we can get going on these
> >articles.
> 
> Sounds good....now I just need to take time to READ them all...

Read them one at a time.  There really aren't that many, and I
assume they are abridged like Reader's Digest.


marc colten

Xref: sparky soc.men:21694 alt.abortion.inequity:6144 alt.feminism:6441
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited
Date: 23 Dec 1992 01:36:05 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

>If you agree with Michal's position that the vile offense of
>"not keeping in touch" should be grounds to terminate a father's
>parental rights, then what do you think about the following:

> A couple is together for a year, but they break up and
> move to different cities, with each other's address.  The
> woman is two weeks' pregnant.  She later has the baby but 
> doesn't tell the father.

>Michal would like the laws to permit her to terminate the
>father's parental rights, because he has, in Michal's words,
>"fled the scene."

>According to Michal, the man can preserve his parental rights
>only by traveling to the woman's new city eight months after
>breaking up, in order to pursue her and see in person whether
>she is now pregnant.

This is a misrepresentation of my position.  Perhaps you have 
misunderstood?  Allow me to clarify.

We were discussing father notification of a woman's pregnancy
in order to allow him to claim the child should the woman choose
to give that child up for adoption.  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.

 
-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Xref: sparky soc.men:21930 alt.feminism:6657
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
Subject: Fallout (was: Re: Boycotts (was Re: Why are many low-income women fat?))
Date: 31 Dec 92 05:07:19 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

In article <C02zFx.5Eq@news.cso.uiuc.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
| gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:

... whatever.  Lenore may be surprised to find that the
thread she was following in alt.feminism has been transferred
without explanation or notice to soc.men.  This clever thing
is done by first cross-posting to soc.men and then setting
the follow-up line to soc.men alone, and the clever doer is
none other than Hillel Gazit.  Sharp, eh?

Evidently he can't handle an environment of alt.feminists
any more than he can handle an environment of soc.feminists.
And it's something more than the severe requirement of writing
coherent, non-inflammatory articles which soc.feminism
requires.  Probably, just the word "feminism" sends shivers
down his back.

Hey, Hillel, is this the "fallout of wimps" you used to
advertise?
-- 

 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
From: x73rl@ll.mit.edu ( Rick LaFave)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 14:10:29 GMT

beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes (amongst other things);

.If you agree with Michal's position that the vile offense of
."not keeping in touch" should be grounds to terminate a father's
.parental rights, then what do you think about the following:
.
. A couple is together for a year, but they break up and
. move to different cities, with each other's address.  The
. woman is two weeks' pregnant.  She later has the baby but 
. doesn't tell the father.

.Michal would like the laws to permit her to terminate the
.father's parental rights, because he has, in Michal's words,
."fled the scene."
.
.According to Michal, the man can preserve his parental rights
.only by traveling to the woman's new city eight months after
.breaking up, in order to pursue her and see in person whether
.she is now pregnant.
.

Oooooh I just love to make cookies;
  Take 1 part sarcasm
       2 parts double standard
       1 teaspoon blame the victim
  and I get;

  Carefull Don, its only if she wants him to, otherwise its called 'stalking'.
Of course what she doesn't know can't hurt her, can it?  I mean if a mans 
ignorance about his impending child is his own fault, then maybe her lack
of knowlege about him 'stalking' her is her own fault.  No, wait, this 
recipie is heavy on double standard - so lets say that when they don't
'keep in touch'; his lack of info about her current whereabouts is his 
fault, while her lack of info about his current whereabouts is his 
fault.   There I think I've got it now.

.
.Do you agree?

  Unfortunately I don't think you've still got her straight.  I don't think 
she requires or requests laws to do this.  She is prepared to pass judgement
based solely on 'he is not there - therefore screw him'.  Didn't you know,
judge, jury all roled into one.  What a convient package!
  You see Don we are supposed to be Sooooo grateful that a female has 
blessed us that...  Wait a second...  I digress, I'm off topic..  Whats
worse my cookies are burning!


                                       Rich L
Newsgroups: soc.men,misc.legal,ba.singles,soc.singles,soc.women
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Pre-Sex Contract
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 10:52:20 GMT
Keywords: sex, agreement, legal, contract

In article <1992Dec18.150754.5625@netcom.com> bob@netcom.com (Bob Becker) writes:
)In article <1992Dec18.063654.9388@netcom.com> rohwerwd@netcom.com (Mr. Tickle Monster) writes:
)>     Here is some more arguments for my point of view.
)
)GET A CLUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
)99% of the people on here think you're an ignorant jerk.
)Every time you post something you reinforce that opinion.

This looks like one of the 99.935276048% of statistics that are made
up on the spot out of whole cloth!

[I'll leave the personal remarks - i.e 'ignorant jerk' - for Mr. Monster
to address....]
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: How come?
Date: 23 Dec 92 15:33:26 GMT
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA


	How come if you go out to lunch with a bunch of men, you get 
the check and it's, like, forty bucks so you go "Right, 10 bucks each,
I'll leave the tip" but if you go out to lunch with a bunch of *women*
it's, like, "Well, *I* had the chopped liver and the small ice tea so
I owe $4.97" and "*I* didn't have any dessert so I only owe $3.23" and
so on until you're waiting for someone to whip out the ol' Hewlett-Packard
with 59 programmable functions and figure it out to the 9th decimal
place?  Why is that, huh?
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: cgates@mitre.org (Curt Gates)
Subject: Who maintains the social network: was Re: Seperatists etc.
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 18:45:04 GMT

In article <lj6nmnINN8jo@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM 
(Dances with Drums) writes:
> It was observed
> that the women were the keystones to the couple's social and emotional
> interactions with others.  The men only had their partner -- because 
> historically men have been taught to be "lone wolves".

I have observed that women have played a strong role in staking out their 
turf as a couple s spokesperson and networker -- and keeping the male 
*out* of that role. So if men have been taught to be lone wolves, to any 
extent, a large part of  teaching that role comes from females.  
Naturally, this is highly variable from culture to culture. Any agreement? 
Disagreement? 


Newsgroups: soc.men
From: cgates@mitre.org (Curt Gates)
Subject: Re: How come?
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 18:26:36 GMT

In article <4439@unisql.UUCP> wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie) writes:
> Why is that, huh?

In the current mood of flame throwing, I might as well tell ya that if you 
were working for two bits on the dollar, or skimming an allowance from the 
family food budget, you too would worry about pennies. But you knew that 
already, right?  

So what s the real reason?  Sharing costs (or showing insensitivity to 
costs) symbolizes the solidarity of the group -- like, we are all part of 
a group and we share and share alike. Or, hey, the next round is on me. 
Yea, team!

The question now is, do men still get the payback from this behavior that 
they used to get?  Kinda reminds me of some studies beer companies did on 
buying habits of groups of men in bars.  They found that there would be 
one person who selected the brand, and all the other guys in the group 
would follow by also drinking that brand.  This so-called brand leader was 
not always the dominant leader in the group.  In fact, he could be 
somebody that a lot of members despised.  Yet he would be the person who 
picked the brand.  So thats why we had a spell of TV ads that showed one 
guy shouting something like, We ll all have a Bud.  The hope was that male 
viewers would go out and do likewise.

I bet this behaviour goes waaay back.  Probably somebody has written a 
thesis on it.