HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: abbst@vms.cis.pitt.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: SAFE SEX -- IT'S YOUR DUTY
Date: 1 Oct 92 16:56:36 GMT
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <MUFFY.92Sep30143809@remarque.berkeley.edu>, muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

> Sure, just wait 10 years or so to make sure they don't have AIDS.  It
> can take that long (maybe longer) for any symptoms to show up.

>> but if you want to use a condom because you don't
>> know were your partner has been then you don't trust/know them enough to 
>> be having sex with them.

> Your partner may not "know where they've been," either.  I remember all
> the people I have had sex with and AS FAR AS I KNOW none of them have
> any STDs, but I can't be 100% sure of that, especially since they might
> not even know.

Muffy's right you know.  If you aren't using a condom you and your lover are
taking tremendous risks.  If you, like Muffy, have had sex with someone who
MIGHT be infected, you owe it to your current partner to use condoms.  Who
knows what undiscovered disease you might be carrying right now? 

At least get your butt down to the free clinic and get a blood test to check
for all of the known diseases.  Have them cure what can be cured and live,
like Magic Johnson, with what can not be cured by practicing safe sex.

Al
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: statistics and questions
Date: 27 Sep 1992 19:13:34 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

>>I gather that one of the critical determinants in women's
>>income and hierarchical status is time in grade -- or
>>maybe more accurately, time in job experience generally.
>>I've seen it repeatedly said that women who have put in
>>the same time get the same money and the same promotions;
>>may do a little bit better, in fact.  "Time" refers to
>>both hours per day and years of employment.  

I wonder, is there any evidence to show causation?  Can we
actually say that women get less money because they work less?
Or is it the other way around -- that because women get paid less
it is usually they who do less paid work and take on more of the
unpaid family duties?  Or is it just correlation:  women get paid
less and work less, but the studies cannot definitively say whether
one causes (or results from) the other?

						--  Michal
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: tyger@netcom.com (Kitty in the Middle)
Subject: Re: MEN-BASHING
Organization:  I didn't do it, nobody saw me do it, you can't prove anything!
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 18:12:11 GMT

dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>tyger@netcom.com (Kitty in the Middle) writes:
>>True...actually, what I find interesting is that most women can shrug off 
>>being called a bitch and any number of other things, but call them a cunt, 
>>and you had better start running! Most of the women I know/have observed go
>>absolutely berserk.
>
>But WHY? Any theories?

I haven't the foggiest...invoking the evil C word has never bothered *me* any
more or any less than any other, but then I've been told several times that
i am more than passing odd.

>Dave Hayes 

   Tyger
-- 
      Kristen Kohlbecker    And I would choose to be with you
      tyger@netcom.com      That's if the choice were mine to make   
                            But you can make decisions too
      A Tyger and a Lady    And you can have this heart to break
From: Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Pornography Victims' Compensation Act
Date: 30 Sep 92 01:19:46 GMT
 <6445@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <6445@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>
tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood) writes:

> Naaa.  He's up for re-election here in Pennsylvania and Lynn Yeakle is
> breathing down his neck.

It appears that Lynn is no longer "breathing".  Recent polls show her
16 points behind Arlen.
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:1813 soc.men:17137
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Choice for men: moving beyond anti-feminism
Date: 30 Sep 1992 17:21:52 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

walkerr@yoyodyne.WPI.EDU (Robert A Walker) writes:


>>Are you implying that you think it is preferable for a man to put
>>up with the inconvenience of a condom than it is for a woman to put
>>up with the inconvenience of the Pill?

>I personally think that this isn't a sexist issue but an issue which should be
>decided between the two people involved.  Why should you, or anybody, care if
>John Smith's girlfriend is on the pill, does that make him a sexist?  What
>if he uses condoms, does that make her a sexisst?

If she takes the Pill because he refuses to use condoms or wait while she
puts in a condom, then it may imply that he is a sexist.  Of course, it may
also imply that she is a fool.

							--  Michal
From: chpetk@gdr.bath.ac.uk (Toby Kelsey)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: _Backlash_ ( Sort of )
Date: 1 Oct 92 19:19:56 GMT
Organization: School of Chemistry, University of Bath, UK

In the referenced article, zen@death.corp.sun.com (d) writes:

>  I think women, as a class, *are* victims to the male power structure.

Do you think men, as a class, *are* victims of the female power structure?

>what is being a victim?  It's someone who is harmed by some attack or
>action from another(s).  You (generic you) split hairs with this and the

By that definition, almost everyone is a victim of almost everyone else.
I think it is a poor definition.

To talk about somebody 'as a class' often sounds stereotyped.  It is much
better to consider people as individuals, rather than giving 'victimhood'
to a class which doesn't deserve it.

Toby
-- 
Toby Kelsey
School of Chemistry,  # JANET: chpetk@uk.ac.bath.gdr, otherwise
University of Bath.   # chpetk%gdr.bath.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Value of Womens' Lives (was: _Backlash_)
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 15:40:46 GMT

In article <+p#p4ka.barry@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>In article <1992Sep25.185645.20238@ads.com> charleen@ADS.COM (Charleen Bunjiovianna) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep25.172039.1016@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>>>In article <Bv52wD.GEx@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>>>Kill the draft or draft the women.
>>>
>>>You must be referring to the registration that every 18 year old man
>>>must do.  There hasn't been a draft since the Vietnam War--20 years
>>>ago.
>>
>>This is the tired point that always gets brought up:  "What are you
>>complaining about?  There *is* no draft."  Unfortunately, Don and I
>>both know that there could be one at any time.  Why else are young
>>men required to register with Selective Service?
>
>	Speaking as a man who reached draft age when there was a real
>draft (and a real war), I agree with ljf: bringing up draft registration
>seems trivial.

>	If draft registration were seen as a serious issue by most men
>today, it would not get mentioned only in the context of debates about
>sexual equality. During the Vietnam War draft protests brought thousands
>of men and women out into the streets.

Do you think that the government has made a calculated move,
to maintain as much of a draft as is possible without providing
enough grounds for a protest movement to form?

I don't think it escaped the politicians that a simple "registration"
would draw responses like yours:  it's not *really* a draft, it's
just a name on a card, and look, nobody's getting very upset, are they?
These young kids (never went to war, never marched in the streets)
just want to complain.

Is the cup half full or half empty?  Is there a draft but no need
for soldiers at the moment so nobody is being enlisted; or is there
no draft but a registration form to enable it to be enforced instantly?


Frankly, having passed the usual age of draftability and having
started a family, I am more worried about other social imbalances,
but I would not just slough off the registration issue as trivial.
I'm not so sure it will be gone when my sons reach 18.  And I want
my sons' lives to be valued as much by society as any woman's.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Freshman
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 92 17:41:54 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.001935.437@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder) writes:
>I can call them anything I want.  If I want a positive response from 
>someone I will use a term that is not deragatory.  Besides, nigger, 
>wop, spic ,kike,wasp, cracker, are not always offensive.

Of course you can.  You may want to note that many people find
"generic" words such as freshmen derogatory, though.  Your insistence
that we keep using them may be considered to be as insulting as your
calling an Italian-American a wop.

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Value of white het-boys lives
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 02:51:30 GMT

In article <1a9ufjINN5sg@bigboote.WPI.EDU> walkerr@yaya.WPI.EDU (Robert A Walker) writes:
>
>>I do agree with you that if women were more powerful, the world may be
>>different, but not any more kinder or gentler.  I don't buy the idea
>>that women are naturally more caring or gentler than men.
>
>	From my observations, women seem to be more underhanded and 
>backstabbing than men are.  Men more or less tell it like it is,
>but it seems that women will lie to someones face, supposably to keep
>from hurting their feelings and then go tell everyone else what they 
>couldn't tell this person to their face.  I've also noticed that this 
>sort of thing goes away with age.  Now I'm gonna get my head chewed off
>for stereotyping, but these are MY OPINIONS so please be gentle.
 
Sorry, you will be asked for names, dates, and thousands of irrelevant
questions to back your -assertions-. Failure to provide proper peer-reviewed
references, citations, and your entire lifes history will invalidate your
claim, as well as your lifes experiences.

Sorry...
 
If you have not met Gorden Fitch, and Richard Lynch, and they have a
single quantum of consistancy to their attack pattern, you soon will.

And they give each other points... 


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: sk73171@cs.tut.fi (Kiiskil{ Sami)
Subject: Re: ERA
Organization: Tampere Univ. of Technology, Finland.
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 09:50:23 GMT


In article <92267.091415ABR105@psuvm.psu.edu> <ABR105@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

> Section 1.  Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abri
> by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

> Section 2.  The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate
> legislation, the provisions of this article.

> Section 3.  This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of
> ratification.

That sounds simple enough. Interesting that it doesn't have any real
discrimination preventing aspects, like those for equal income in the same
work despite of sex or against discrimination when getting jobs.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Money isn't everything, : Sami Kiiskil{  ( The { means 'ae' ) :   Nothing   :
: . . . there is also     : e-mail : sk73171@ee.tut.fi          :     is      :
:  H i g h - T e c h  ! ! : phone : 931-180690 or 934-428254    : impossible. :
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- 
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:1820 soc.men:17143 soc.women:17220
From: dmcanzi@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Value of Womens' Lives (was: _Backlash_)
Date: 29 Sep 92 20:00:11 GMT
Article-I.D.: watserv1.BvCvKC.Bpq
Organization: University of Waterloo

In article <1992Sep26.055229.27451@msc.cornell.edu> hillyard@msc.cornell.edu 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?

Those who have total faith in the belief that society values women's
lives less than men's will interpret this as either (a) a minor and
insignificant exception, or (b) gloating.

-- 
David Canzi
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Bias in Academia?
Date: 5 Oct 92 23:58:21 GMT
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences

In article <1992Oct2.105047.12112@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
   [deletions]
>Much childcare is catch-as-catch-can, relatives, neighbors, children
>being kept in someone's house.  The good childcare centers are usually
>packed and there are waiting lists.  Librarians complain of children

Your idea of catch-as-catch-can is my idea of a better plan.  I *trust* my
relatives and neighbors more, or at least know enough about them to know which
to trust with children.

A good daycare that's packed.  Scary.  Hope you meant packed in a non-literal
herring-type sense.  I've seen some that are packed, and I can't imagine one
that is packed and good.

>coming from school to the public libraries because there's nowhere
>else for them to go, thus the libraries act as babysitters.  And we've
>all heard of the latch-key kids.

Actually, a library is a pretty decent place for kids to be.  I wouldn't mind
paying more taxes for daycare in a library.  Wanna bet the government wouldn't
go for it?

>It's not about giving adults more free time, it's about helping a
>single parent hold down a job.  It's about providing constructive
>activities for a child who otherwise has to go home alone to watch TV.

Take that TV part out please.  The kids *can* do a lot of other good things at
home alone.  A lot of them can be constructive, too, come to think of it.

>I don't have children and I don't want children.  But to ignore the
>millions of kids who get dangerous, sub-standard care or no care
>simply because their parents are too poor to buy better care is a
>disgrace.  I'd also like to remind the adults who think the shoddy
>treatment kids get is fine or not their problem that we're going to be
>old and dependent on these kids some day.
I agree it's our problem.  I'm not sure tax dollars for daycare is the answer.
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Subject: Re: _Backlash_ ( Sort of )
Date: 04 Oct 92 20:48:46 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1aknreINNafd@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>
>>So, I said, any man who thinks that that is what women are like
                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>should either get a vasectomy or not have sex with women.  
>
>>I would recommend sterilization or not having sex with men to any woman
>>who believed  that all men were lying about birth control in order to
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>get them  pregnant.
>[There are other alternatives...condoms, verifiable barrier methods,
>other than penis-in-the-vagina sex]

One other thought:

One might only have procreative sex with members of the opposite sex whom
one trusts. 

IE, if you are a man, have sex only with women whom you know and
trust not to be trying to get pregnant so that the woman and child
can live off your earnings.  If you are a man and you truly believe
that there are NO SUCH WOMEN...1) YOU are who Muffy is speaking to
2) Maybe you should consider therapy.

And if you are a woman who believes that ALL MEN are lying about
birth control so that they can make you pregnant against your will
...Again, 1) YOU are who Muffy is speaking to and 2) Maybe you 
should consider therapy.

-jen
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Victims of False "Memories" Form Organization
From: moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (moz [chris moseley])
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 02:52:53 GMT
Organization: Electrical Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand

> Check out the October 1992 issue of Playboy.  There's an article on this
> subject by Debbie Nathan called "Cry Incest".  Debbie goes "undercover"
> at a retreat for suvivors of abuse.  It's certainly intersting reading.

does anyone out there have a scanner and a copy - I would love to 
read it but balk at paying $15 for a copy of a magazine I would
not otherwise buy. (email it to me if you prefer)

thanks
moz
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:2075 soc.men:17349 soc.women:17387
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Violent Di Batters Charles
Keywords: Poor Little Princess!
Date: 5 Oct 92 21:18:09 GMT
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences

In article <keulen.718008610@possum> keulen@possum.csu.murdoch.edu.au (Mike van Keulen) writes:
>noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
>
>>He must do *something* to dispel this "wimp" image.  Maybe he should
>>give Dan Rather a hard time during an interview....
>
>Hang on a minute ... what's wrong with walking away from a fight ... if I see a
>fight coming which could involve me, I would much rather walk away, avoiding
>the confrontation and defusing the situation.  Isn't that a much better
>strategy?  Surely the rough and tumble "real-man"-hood days aren't still
>around?
They are for some people.
And everyone has to deal with somebody who thinks like this sooner or later.
So, yeah, they're still around.
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Value of Womens' Lives (was: _Backlash_)
Summary: Get a life
Date: 29 Sep 92 20:09:07 GMT
Reply-To: tjw+@pitt.edu
Followup-To: Your Mother
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Sep29.181319.2333@leland.Stanford.EDU>, farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
> In article <1992Sep28.200059.1@vms.cis.pitt.edu> tjw+@pitt.edu writes:

>>I only included the line "Check out the copies for the blind at the local
>>library if the pictures offend you)" to answer those who would dismiss my
>>source.  The "you" used is the English plural "you".

> The fact that you intended "you" to be the plural "you" is not obvious
> to me.  I figured it was another slap at Muffy, a continuation of the
> hostility you've shown for her in several posts.

Oh yes, I've been so hostile!  Get real.

> Now if you had written "People can check out the copies for the blind
> at the local library if the pictures offend you," you obviously would
> had been speaking to others besides Muffy.  But you didn't.

> IMO, you've done more than your fair share to lead this discussion
> into the Twilight Zone.

Yea, right.  And this is the only part of the my post that you could find
anything to comment on.  I feel real sorry for both of you.

Terry
-- 
        INTERNET: tjw+@pitt.edu         BITNET: TJW@PITTVMS
"Laugh while you can, Monkey Boy!"                        - Lord "John" Warfin
"There can be only one!"                                  - The Highlander
"There should have been only one. I want my money back!"  - Terry
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Playboy/Men/Feminists
Date: 3 Oct 92 19:24:59 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Oct2.233903.3092@ils.nwu.edu>, lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:

> In article <6608@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> tjw+@pitt.edu writes:

>>I have always suspected that the written word in Playboy was far more
>>"dangerous" than those "EVIL" pictures.  

> On what are you basing the conclusion that the articles are the EVIL?
> Because Congress made some wacky vote?

I don't think the articles are "EVIL", but I suspect that some members
of congress think they are!  Or at least too dangeous for blind people
to read.  They couldn't have been concerned about the photographs, because
the edition for the blind has no photographs -- just articles!

It is the written word that congress did not want the blind to read!

Therefore, I "conclude" that Congress is trying to protect the Blind from
some "EVIL"! ;-)

Terry "An EVIL, VILE, LIVE reader" Wood

-- 
        INTERNET: tjw+@pitt.edu         BITNET: TJW@PITTVMS
"Laugh while you can, Monkey Boy!"                        - Lord "John" Warfin
"There can be only one!"                                  - The Highlander
"There should have been only one. I want my money back!"  - Terry
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: Paglia Sold Out (was: Paglia to Speak in S.F. Tuesday)
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:59:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.0v+pf5.sheaffer
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <-__pwtr.sheaffer@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>       (Ad in the San Francisco EXAMINER, Sept. 27, 1992)
> 
>    CAMILLE PAGLIA, author, scholar, feminist, libertarian, contrarian
>
>        & author of the best-selling "SEXUAL PERSONAE"
>
>        and the newly released book "Sex, Art, & American Culture: Essays"
>
>     Tuesday, Sept. 29, 8:00 PM,  Herbst Theatre. All Tickets $12
>

I called the theater this morning (the lecture being this evening), to 
try to get a ticket. However, I learned that this lecture very quickly
sold out, which apparently surprised the people at the theater box office.

-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!

       "Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on this planet.
        Then all things are at risk. It is as when a conflagration has
        broken out in a great city, and no man knows what is safe, or
        where it will end."
                               - Emerson: Essay, "Circles"
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic)
Subject: Re: Observations from male studentnt
Organization: TRW Financial Systems
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 12:58:32 GMT

farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:

>>2. Value male sexuality more. Not as a market, but for itself.
>
>How isn't male sexuality valued?  Nearly everywhere I look, hetero
>male sexuality is promoted and appealed to.  Half-naked women are used
>to sell everything from beer to cars.  Movies are full of unattractive
>men wooing and winning very attractive women.

Who said that the folks who bring you half-naked women are defining male
sexuality?

>What does the Swedish bikini team (as an exmaple) say about female
>sexuality?  Does it say anything about what women like in sex, how
>they feel about their bodies, their sexual desires for men or other
>women?  Or is the female body just treated as one more product that
>the affluent man can buy?

Who said that the folks who bring you the Swedish bikini team are defining
female sexuality?

Or that in either case, they have the right to do that?
Or that in either case, we have to buy into that?
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:1693 soc.men:16994 soc.women:17101