HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ta-vg11@muddnext13.cc.columbia.edu (Vikas Gupta)
Subject: slimy women
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 21:38:49 GMT

Over the years talking to many of my friends we have generally agreed 
that women are slimy.  They only are interested in you if they can 
use you , like for example


this friend of mine Ani Weling

add:435 W.,119 street
Amsterdam Ave.,


749 9461


was madly in love with this girl ,Anita,
who constantly used him.

But she could use him only for SO MUCH amount of time in a day.

So one day when she found this guy Jack,

she double timed with both of them..



then one day Ani walked on to them when she was using Jack,
thats why all women are SLIMY


SLIMY,SLIMY SLIMY
Xref: sparky soc.women:19141 talk.politics.theory:4802 sci.philosophy.tech:3971 sci.philosophy.meta:2424 sci.classics:942
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Newsgroups: soc.women,talk.politics.theory,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.classics
Subject: Re: Plato's Views on Women
Date: 9 Nov 92 10:15:27 GMT
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences

In article <BxE9EL.IuK@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
}
}Such subject matter might justify some treatment in anthropology or sociology,
}but not philosophy.  Do you really think that there is anything that could
}rightly be called "feminine metaphysics"?  "Feminine epistemology"?
}"Feminine ethics"?  "Feminine politics"?  If so, perhaps you can explain
}how this relates to the views of Maggie Thatcher and Barbara Boxer.

I've just been waiting for a feminist version of the law of Identity that
says that A is PMS :-).

Seriously, though, while I find the relativism or polylogism of may current
feminists objectionable, it doesn't follow from this that these positons are
insignificant or unimportant.  On the contrary, since we are surrounded by
such nonsense, it is of utmost importance!

My only other objection is that not all feminism shares these faulty
methodological principles.  To claim otherwise is false.

Besides which, Brian Yoder keeps criticizing even relativist or polylogist
feminism on accidentals, not essentials.


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: hsims@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Back Again To Father Notification...
Organization: Clark University
Date: 5 NOV 92 16:05:22 GMT

In a previous article, beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) wrote:
>In article <1992Nov4.181144.5546@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> jrmo@volta.att.com (J.R.Moore) writes:
>>rlt@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (r l taylor) writes:
>>
>>By all means, any husbands who may be tricked into raising children conceived
>>by another man, take the child in for genetic testing, but what does that
>>have to do with notification for abortion?  Do you want genetic testing
>>on the fetus?
> 
>"By all means," how?
> 
>If there is a dispute, then:
> 
>1.  The father denies fatherhood and demands a paternity test.
>If it's negative, he "wins."  If it's positive, he will have
>severely reduced his chances for custody.  ("If you doubt your
>child is yours *and* you want to escape your responsibilities,
>then how can I expect you to be a good parent?" asks the judge.)

This has to do with born children.  If a woman decides to have an abortion, 
why should she be forced to notify the father?  If she has an abortion, these 
is no child to fight for custody over.

>2.  The father does not deny fatherhood and cannot demand a paternity
>test if the woman "keeps" the child in her "care."  He risks paying 
>for someone else's child, and never knows.

Again, this has to do with children.  If a woman aborts there is no child, 
and therefore no risk of paying child support. 

>3.  The father surreptitiously brings the child to a willing doctor
>or kidnaps the child and brings him/her to a willing doctor to 
>determine paternity.

Kind of difficult to kidnap a fetus and bring it to a doctor for testing.  

I really don't see what any of these situations have to do with women who 
do not wish to notify their lover(s) that she is having an abortion.  

>Don

				....Heather.

Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.singles,alt.sex
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Different Issues 
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 01:52:38 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Nov8.174208.26500@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
]john@anasazi.com writes:
]
]Would You believe me if I told you its a C++ definitional Structure
]from which the Objects Male, Female, Other are derived, and which
]they inherit the public and private characteristics....
]
]Its important to recompile should you change anything
]in the Gender Class....

I suppose it has interesting member functions, also.
]
]ciao
]drieux

Drieux, did anyone ever tell you that your postings are wierd? Truly
wierd?


-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality! - -
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.singles,alt.sex,alt.peeves
Subject: Re: Different Issues
Date: 11 Nov 92 12:54:36 GMT
Followup-To: talk.bizarre,soc.motss
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

john@anasazi.com writes:

] Keywords: 
] 
] In article <1992Nov8.174208.26500@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
] ]john@anasazi.com writes:
] ]
] ]Would You believe me if I told you its a C++ definitional Structure
] ]from which the Objects Male, Female, Other are derived, and which
] ]they inherit the public and private characteristics....
] ]
] ]Its important to recompile should you change anything
] ]in the Gender Class....
] 
] I suppose it has interesting member functions, also.
] ]
] ]ciao
] ]drieux
] 
] Drieux, did anyone ever tell you that your postings are wierd? Truly
] wierd?


no.

Why?

ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems:
Hickory, Dickory, Dock - Three Mice Ran up a Clock
The Clock Struct one, 
and the Other Two will be Upgraded In the Next Release.
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: Am I "exploiting" this woman?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 22:28:44 GMT

HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:

>In <1992Nov5.153742.20271@cbnews.cb.att.com> lib@cbnews.cb.att.com writes:

>> In article <Bx80u8.4zK@ccu.umanitoba.ca> kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts) writes:
>> >
>> >What a person reads, wherever they read it, should be their own business.  I
>> >still don't understand why someone should be upset with that woman for
>> >reading an erotic magazine.  Granted, it is easy to come up with specific
>> >incidences, but I don't think it is valid as a general rule.
>>    
>> Not at work. You're on private property with other people and
>> those other people have rights.

>  So, whose rights have precedence?  The write of an individual to read/look
>at whatever they like (like Plaboy/Girl, Mein Kampf, the Koran, etc.), or
>the individual(s) "bothered" by the presence of the "offensive" material?
>So long as it isn't on "company time", of course...

Not being allowed to read such things at work does not stop you from reading
them at home (where there *is* noone else to consider.  If you have a wife and/
or kids, you can always lock yourself in the bathroom...  ;)  but your reading
such things at work *does* stop those others from being able to avoid them.
*That* is how you know.

Simply stated:  passive rights have precidence over active rights.
The right *not* to have something happen to you is more important than the
right of you to cause that something *to* happen to someone.

>Jammer Jim Miller 

-Rob
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: charleen@ADS.COM (Charleen Bunjiovianna)
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Organization: The Original Estrogen-Crazed Lust Bunnies
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 18:54:16 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.060244.24665@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <1dca07INNgcj@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>
>>I jsut don't understand this.  Do youmean that your love for the
>>child is conditional on whether its DNA matches yours?
>>
>>							--  Michal
>
>You know, this may be another point where biology gets in the way.
>The woman always knows that it is -her- child. 

Not necessarily.

Charleen


--
Q: What did the blonde say when the doctor told her she was pregnant?
A: "Is it mine?"                     
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: jennings@tran.fishkill.ibm.com ()
Subject: Re: Sexist?  Dangerous?
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 18:37:39 GMT
Reply-To: jennings@tran.fishkill.ibm.com ()
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <1992Nov13.152531.9860@athena.cs.uga.edu>,
stanton@athena.cs.uga.edu (Catherine Stanton) writes:
> Al, you need to give the other poster a break.   YOU, more than likely,
> do not know what it is like to have a guy follow you and not know what
> his intentions are.  So don't be so callous to her worries.  This guy
> COULD have had a knife, COULD have been up to anything.  Women have to
> be defensive and paranoid in this world because those of us who don't
> (and some of us who do unfortunately)  might end up raped, murdered,
> any number of things.
> 
> Cat
> 

i hate to admit it, but Cat's right. Not only do women have to watch
out, everyone should watch out.		

i was in the alphabet city section of nyc late at nite one, with several
of my friends. we are all males,	
over 6ft tall, decent size. well, several suspicious looking people
followed us for six or seven blocks.	
we turned up and down several streets, and they stuck about 6 ft behind
us. then, they just turned around	
and walked back the oposite way. our lucky night i guess.

the point is, in a city atmosphere, when someone says 'nice coat',
'you're very pretty', or whatever,	
they want something. and they may inflict bodily harm to get it

be careful....

bill the cat........


Newsgroups: soc.women
From: gwangung@byron.u.washington.edu (Roger Tang)
Subject: Re: Am I "exploiting" this woman?
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:10:30 GMT

In article <92309.205408CMSTEST@GTRI01.GATECH.EDU> CMSTEST@GTRI01.GATECH.EDU (Jeffery Swagger) writes:
>In article <Bx6EA9.Mz9@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John
>Aarts) says:
>The workplace is becoming increasingly diversified with respect to
>race, creed, gender, ethnic backgrounds, religion, etc.  IMHO, we
>must all become more considerate and tolerant of each other if
>we wish to avoid having the workplace turned into a battle ground.

	But, of course, this reeks of Political Correctness. And, thus, we
should not give it the slightest consideration in our thoughts.

	Sarcasm, for the ideologically challenged.


-- 
	"I got into theatre originally to pick up girls. Unfortunately, all I
found were women..."
e-mail:  gwangung@u.washington.edu
Xref: sparky soc.women:19437 talk.politics.theory:4887 sci.philosophy.tech:4066 sci.philosophy.meta:2551 sci.classics:996
From: ssc@nwu.edu (Steven Chung)
Newsgroups: soc.women,talk.politics.theory,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.classics
Subject: Re: Yoder's idea of feminist philosophy (was Re: Plato's Views on Women)
Date: 12 Nov 92 17:09:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Nov12.170933.17498
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Originator: schung@casbah.acns.nwu.edu


Since this thread no longer pretends to be about Plato, please get it out of
sci.classics, together with other irrelevant sub-threads.
There are other groups for broad philosophical generalization.
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Subject: Re: Women in Combat
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 17:18:53 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.203622.8038@news.cs.indiana.edu> "Amy Young Leith" <alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu> writes:
>In article <1992Nov11.135029.4097@hemlock.cray.com> acp@cray.com (Anthony Peterson) writes:
>
>>	Why is it OK that male-->male rape is "pretty low" but sad that
>>	the incidence of male-->female rape "hasn't quite been educated
>>	out of existence"?
>
>It's kind of like the lesser of two evils.  I doubt she meant that
>male-male rape is "ok."  

I doubt it, but maybe you can explain to all of us how male-->male rape
is less evil than male-->female rape.  Inquiring minds would like to see
you struggle with that one.

While you are at it, maybe you can also explain the degree of evil
associated with female-->male rape.  I bet, by your standards, it's the
least evil, of the three.

Sexist.

Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM 
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: dtrytten@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Deborah Trytten)
Subject: Re: Entry level salaries (was: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 15:34:00 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA
Followup-To: soc.women 

In article <GFZSBZ9@cc.swarthmore.edu> auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer) writes:
>In article <MUFFY.92Nov9082355@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>In article <9NOV199210165558@mary.fordham.edu> nissim@mary.fordham.edu (Leonard J. Nissim) writes:
>>>[Instigatory quote...]
>>>Here are the *new* statistics (from the November 1992 issue of "Notices of 
>>>the American Mathematical Society"):
>>>9-month academic salaries of people with new Ph.D.'s in mathematics:
>>>(`new' means granted during the 1991/92 academic year) 
>>>Median salary for men----$34,000  (interquartile range--31,000 to 36,000)
>>>Median salary for women--$34,900  (interquartile range--33,000 to 37,100)
>>>Note that women earn over $1.02 for each $1 earned per man.  
>>
>>[Discussion on difference between mean and median...]
>
>Another possible skewing perhaps overlooked in those figures, and to my eyes
>a more relevant one is the figures for number of men and women graduating
>this year with Ph. D.'s in math.
>
>Perhaps, women's higher wages, (the implication by Leonard being that the
>difference is small), may be fully explained in that women math Ph.D.'s are
>more of a commodity than men math Ph.D.'s....

And there is yet another dimension to this that hasn't been discussed:
maybe the men and women involved are not of equal ability?    I have
been involved in higher education (either as a student or faculty member)
for the last fourteen years.   And I have noticed that women of
average ability are actively discouraged from pursuing mathematical
or scientific careers more than men of average ability.  The reasoning
that is usually used is that he needs to earn a good living to support
his family, and she can do something else that she is more capable of.
Of course this is sexists in *both* directions since she might be
a perfectly fine scientist in time, and he might be better off in another
career.

When I graduated from Albion College in 1982, there were two women
who finished mathematics majors.  I was one.  The other was the
valedictorian of the graduating class.   I graduated in the top
five percent of the class (although the specific rank escapes me
at the moment), with a double major in physics.  Wouldn't it be 
expected that the women who graduated in mathematics that year would 
have better average salaries than the men (who included some people 
from the bottom quartile)?   In fact, the valedictorian and I
were both elected as the outstanding senior mathematics majors--
so the top two people were women.  Wouldn't it be expected that the
two best students might earn more than the rest, at least initially?

Deborah Trytten
dtrytten@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Sad Day for Liberty
Organization: my opinions only
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 22:17:54 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.080709.1587@leland.Stanford.EDU>
farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>In article <1992Nov4.183211.6015@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> jrmo@volta.att.com (J.R.Moore) writes:

>I was attracted to the Libertarian Party until I realized that the
>answer to every injustice was to tell the person being victimized,
>"You don't have the right to be served if the owner doesn't want to
>serve you.  What you do have the right to do is to found your own
>business and then refuse to serve whoever you want."

You can also start a "anti-discrimination society", and get other
people to pledge that they won't discriminate and won't patronize
businesses that do.  Since in our coercive democracy, presumably a
majority of people oppose discrimination (else why would laws be
passed against it?) you ought to be able to get a majority of people
to cooperate with you.  Therefore, almost all discriminatory
businesses will soon cease to exist, due to loss of over 50% of their
potential clientel.

>I talked several friends out of voting for Libertarians when I showed
>them some postings on the net by Libertarians on the topic of "freedom
>of association."  (Those posts are usually eye-opening, to say the
>least.)

Do you like the ability to choose your friends/dates/lovers
arbitrarily, or would you prefer that the government implement an
affirmative action program for you?

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts)
Subject: Re: Am I "exploiting" this woman?
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 23:26:19 GMT

 lib@cbnews.cb.att.com (Lib) writes:

> kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts) writes:
>>
>>What a person reads, wherever they read it, should be their own business.  I
>>still don't understand why someone should be upset with that woman for
>>reading an erotic magazine.  Granted, it is easy to come up with specific
>>incidences, but I don't think it is valid as a general rule.
>   
>Not at work. You're on private property with other people and
>those other people have rights.

I don't understand what other peoples rights have to do with what she reads.

> 
>>You still have not explained why a calender or poster is inherently bad.
>>You have offered the suggestion of role reversal, but that doesn't help much.
>>I don't have an inherent fear or hate of beef-cake pictures.  I would really
>>like it if you could articulate why Chip & Dale calenders are the most
>>evil things in the world.

>Calendars or posters are not, of course, inherently bad. Those that depict 
>people as sex objects may create or contribute to a hostile environment.

I do not believe they create a hostile enviroment, and everything is
capable of contributing to a hostile environment.  I am not against
chastising hostile co-workers, but against labeling posters as immediately
hostile.

Ken
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: carroll@cs.uiuc.edu (Alan M. Carroll)
Subject: Re: Am I "exploiting" this woman?
Organization: Technophiles Inc. - Engineers with Attitude
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 23:33:04 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.180123.28981@menudo.uh.edu>, HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
> In <1992Nov5.153742.20271@cbnews.cb.att.com> lib@cbnews.cb.att.com writes:
> > Not at work. You're on private property with other people and
> > those other people have rights.
>   So, whose rights have precedence? 

The better question is, whose private property? I doubt that the
"other people" mentioned are the owners of the property. If I invite
Lib and Janice over to my house (private property), I don't see how
Janice's rights can control what Lib gets to read on my couch.

With that said, I also have to support Janice's right to be upset and
think less of people because of it. That's her priviledge. It is not
her place to legally prevent others from reading such things - it is
her place to dislike such things and the people who read them.

-- 
Alan M. Carroll          "Weren't there yams involved, too?" - J. Ockerbloom
Epoch Development Team   
Urbana Il.               "I hate shopping with the reality-impaired" - Susan
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Was Clinton's victory America's message to the Anti-Choice?
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Distribution: na
Date: 10 Nov 92 21:18:22 GMT

In <1992Nov5.155055.28256@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:


>It seems to me that one of the largest deciding factors, along with the
>economy, in pushing Clinton past the finish line was abortion. It seems
>that few voted 'for'  WClinton (or even 'for' Perot) but did this as a 
>vote *against* Bush.

It'll be a while before all the info is in, but, as I have indicated in
a post about FOCA just before the election, the public has had the wool
pulled over its eyes as to how extreme FOCA is, or for that matter, how
extreme Roe v. Wade is.  Why, our own Senator Fritz Hollings, whose margin
of victory over Hartnett was only about 5 percentage points despite the
fact that he outspent Hartnett 3 to 1, actually thinks RvW allows states
to prohibit 3rd trimester abortions unless the LIFE of the woman is 
endangered.  If this is how badly a US Senator is disinformed, you can
imagine how it is with the public at large.

Peter Nyikos

Xref: sparky soc.women:19524 alt.feminism:4370 soc.men:19243