HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Who's Bashing Whom?
Date: 11 Apr 92 03:13:30 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Labs, Livermore CA

In article <3-rj8za.sheaffer@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.140804.6446@tc.fluke.COM> tron@tc.fluke.COM (Peter Barbee) writes: (quoting me)
:::Sally Quinn, in her syndicated article "Is Feminism As We Have Known
:::it Dead?" [San Jose Mercury News, Jan. 26, 1992] paints Steinem as a
:::"backslider" for admitting that she fell in love with a man who
:::treated her badly (a big feminist no-no, but 'the way the world
:::works'). Steinem admits to seducing him by playing down the person
:::she was, and playing up the person she wanted him to be, which
:::is what a feminist is NEVER supposed to do.

::Not that I give a big cahoot about who Ms. Steinem does or doesn't
::fall in love with but I always that "playing up the person she wanted him
::to be" was a positive thing to do.  I could rephrase this as treating
::people how you want them to be (eg. trust a person whom you want to be
::trustworthy).  Pretty much golden rule stuff.

::Of course the other part ("playing down the person she was") isn't
::real healthy behavior.

:I'm sorry, I wrote that incorrectly. It should have read, "playing down the
:person she was, and playing up the person HE wanted HER to be." Two
:*big* feminist no-nos here: playing the passive, submissive little woman,
:and, even worse, loving an abusive man. And this from a feminist
:who once confidently proclaimed the beginning of a Brave New Era!

	I don't think that GS's rich boyfriend was being really
abusive; I think she realized after awhile that she was living a lie,
and then decided to break up. I suspect it was because she might not
have been quite aware of what she had gotten into. Well, at least she
_admitted_ she goofed. How many others are willing to express any
contrition over anything they've ever done?
From: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Getting screwed, wanna talk?!
Date: 16 Apr 92 00:50:17 GMT
Reply-To: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Organization: Florida State University, but I don't speak for them

In article <1992Apr13.231300.1276@bvc.edu> stougheric@bvc.edu (The Wease) writes:
>	I was wondering, if I brought up a situation where I got
>totally 'f*cked' and would like to hear some advice on it, would
>anyone respond?  This seems like an interesting way of talking
>about your problems...sorry if I'm getting the purpose if this
>netword wrong...

Some people will respond positively.  Some people will try to tear you to
shreds.  Talking about problems is certainly a part of the purpose of this
newsgroup, but it's a chance.

-EMP
Xref: sparky soc.men:8570 soc.women:9091 alt.flame:7029 alt.fan.q:423
From: jcc@frog.UUCP (Jim Chagnon)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.flame,alt.fan.q
Subject: Re: Q the fake
Date: 16 Apr 92 22:38:00 GMT
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: CRDS

In article <1992Apr14.124333.6156@oz.plymouth.edu> michaelc@oz.plymouth.edu (Mike Clark) writes:

>But on the other hand, we're used to women faking so I guess Q must be
>a woman....

 Y'know, I'm not up on the customs of the other news.groups in the header,
but in alt.flame, you're supposed to make your -opponent- look like the
dick-head.

jcc

  ....a small clue for you...
From: stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Vanilla Sex in Canada (was Re: Japanese Women's Lib)
Date: 15 Apr 92 17:39:12 GMT
Distribution: na

Stewart Schultz laments:

+ It amazes me that the core idea in _Pornography_ managed to get
+ enshrined in federal law.  Acknowledging Canada's lust for censorship
+ doesn't make me any happier about its ongoing love affair with
+ Dworkin.

Remember to use protection! You never know when these love affairs will
turn steamy....

K'Char
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: gender "data-hiding" (vs. discrimination)
Date: 11 Apr 92 03:20:10 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Labs, Livermore CA

In article <12182@tamsun.tamu.edu> cnh5730@maraba.tamu.edu (Charles Herrick) writes:
>In article <92099.162254JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu> JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu (Joy  
>Haftel) writes:
:|: :Toss this one over in your mind:  for women to have an equal weight,
:|: :status, and opportunity in the world as men, they cannot have  
:children.
:|: :I think that is the bottom line.  I would be neither emotionally or
:|: :physically capable of working at a high-responsibility, high-hours job
:|: :if I were pregnant or if I were having a child, and I believe I am
:|: :a fairly strong person. 

:Absolutely true.

:But what's your point? That this is unfair or that women suffer more than  
:men because of it? I hope not.

:Just don't have kids. If you're going to have kids, give up the idea of a  
:demanding, hard-working power-oriented career.

	Does one really _have_ to torture oneself in order to have a
career? Maybe a more relaxed one that won't give one a heart attack
later on in life. I think both sexes could benefit from that.

:American feminist females need to start learning how to make choices.

	Why only women? Why not men also?
From: chpetk@gdr.bath.ac.uk (Toby Kelsey)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: You want to win.
Date: 14 Apr 92 13:04:38 GMT
Reply-To: chpetk@uk.ac.bath.gdr (Toby Kelsey)
Organization: School of Chemistry, University of Bath, UK

>In article <92102.115551JLB155@psuvm.psu.edu> JLB155@psuvm.psu.edu (Jennifer Brown) writes:
>>"In order to maintain a minimum of unwanted births and unwanted legalities
>>of child support and custody arrangements, all persons who have the
>>possibility of becoming a parent need the express written and verbal
>>permission of the other potential parent before having a child.
>>If such permission has not been granted, a pregnancy of this unresolved
>>matter will be terminated, before and up to the 180th day of the
>>pregnancy.

>>Comments?

In article <703057527@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:

>3) For the father to have his "test-tube" baby, the mother should have
>   a complicated procedure.  I don't want to force it on her by law.

I think you misunderstood Jennifer's idea.  If the mother doesn't
agree to it then the pregnancy is aborted before the 180-day limit.
Both parents must agree in order to go beyond this point.
Or have I misunderstood this?

>My suggestion is:
>
>If pregnancy occurs, and the mother does not want an abortion, then
>she will give two choices for the father:
>
>a) Sign a commitment to support the future child.
>b) Sign off all his rights and responsibilities toward the future child.
>
>He will have one week to answer.  No answer would mean option b).
>
>If she can't locate the father then she will submit a request
>to a state agency that will send him a registered mail with the form.
>If he will not answer in a week then an ad with his name will be 
>placed in a daily newspaper.  No answer will mean option b).

This means that the mother, by claiming she doesn't know the father,
can force him to lose his rights to his child.
I would prefer:

	If the father cannot be located, then his rights
	are _suspended_ until he is found or comes forward.
	Then he has one week to decide.

This also assumes paternity is established quickly,
or should the nominated 'father' have to decide
without knowing if he is the actual father?

>>-Jennifer

>Hillel                                              gazit@cs.duke.edu

 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
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Smelling The Roses (was Re: Companies can afford it, right?)
Date: 11 Apr 92 01:57:02 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

In article <34146@unix.SRI.COM> maslak@unix.SRI.COM (Valerie Maslak) writes:
>I've had two children. If our society doesn't start valuing
>child-raising and allocate resources to it, we'll end up with
>serial killers and drive-by shootings and gang rapes
>in Central Park being the norm...

The feminist solution of letting every woman have as many children
as she likes and let the state worry about financing the poor ones
(and sending the police after non paying dads, no matter why they
don't pay) has been tried for the last 20 years.

In the same time crime levels rose up and girls who can't add
started to multiply in a high rate.  People are so fed up with
that that even in California and NY they think how to cut the
benefits in the welfare system.

Valerie's solution?

Allocate many more resources for child-raising...
From: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Smelling The Roses
Date: 8 Apr 92 03:30:13 GMT
Reply-To: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Organization: Florida State University, but I don't speak for them

In article <1992Apr8.002734.588@midway.uchicago.edu> learn@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (William Vajk (igloo)) writes:
>That's the problem, dontcha see. Deferred living against some promise
>of a better future is what my part of this discussion is about. I can't
>say I've ever met anyone for whom it has actually worked out as the sought
>after advantage in the long term. 

Hi, I'm Eric Pepke.  You know me already.  It's worked for me twice.  

Once I had the option of either going to University and working part-time to
pay for it or working full-time and achieving an immediately higher standard
of living.  I chose to work and go to University and subsist on Ramen and Miso
soup for a while.  I got a degree, which has helped me.

Another time, quite recently, I had the option of doing the same old job as
usual or taking some risks, doing something that existed only in my dreams.  
This involved working quite a lot, some months an average of 75 hours a week 
or more.  It was not pleasant, and sometimes it hurt.  However, as a result I 
have been able to do something reasonably remarkable and have achieved some 
degree of fame (there's an article about us in Supercomputing Review and we 
got the cover of American Biological Laboratories and the proceedings of one
of the AMS conference reprint volumes).  I also got a small but significant 
raise during a year when raises were rare.

What most people in the discussion other than the Wharf Rat are missing is that 
people who put in this kind of investment intelligently do it for themselves.
They don't simply trust the corporation (or whatever) blindly.  They make 
choices, take initiative, and carve out their own niches.  They also take 
risks.  There's no guarantee.  Sometimes the choices involve changing 
companies or setting out on your own.  Sometimes they involve saying, "I'm 
going to do what I think is right, and if you don't like it, you can bloody
well fire me."  And there's always a chance that they will.

Sometimes you fall flat on your face.  On the other hand, sometimes you win.

-EMP
From: stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: pro-choice == pro-(womens' only) choice?
Date: 11 Apr 92 00:41:03 GMT
Distribution: na

Merlyn LeRoy compares apples with oranges

[man ruined by accidental fatherhood]

+ Hillel, am I ever going to get an answer from you about the
+ traffic accident analogy?  You know, where the driver of the
+ car hits a pedestrian and later wants to limit his liability
+ so charges of manslaughter don't "destroy his life" (because
+ the pedestrian's family wants to make a medical decision he
+ disagrees with; discontinue life support).  The driver wanted
+ to either require life support or cut off his liability, but

Can you say "Liability Insurance"???

Can you say "Paternity Insurance"???

Good. Now, which can you buy?

K'Char
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen)
Subject: Re: Companies can afford it, right?
Organization: University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 17:01:41 GMT

In article <ATAYLOR.92Apr4143251@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
>
>	'Fess up, Larsen, you didn't read Wharfies note at all.
>	You're just projecting your own personal hurts onto
>	the rest of us: but NO MAN on this net is your ex-
>	husband, whether you like it or not.

Of all the flame-bait drivel you left for me this weekend, Nosy, this 
is the only comment warrenting a response.

My ex-husband is a fine man who through sheer force of will and 
strength of conviction and personality has been able to overcome 
personal adversity that would have crushed most men.  He is a man 
who has taken responsibility for his life and his actions and 
is deserving of much more than this life has held for him.

I would never disparage my ex-husband in public.  I would appreciate 
the same from you.


Sue Larsen
slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu
From: stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Men Are Not Cost Effective
Date: 9 Apr 92 02:47:37 GMT
Distribution: na

John Locke writes
+ bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:

+ # A usenet author has filed another salvo in the battle between the
+ # sexes, arguing in a new post that the nations annual $xxxx billion
+ # welfare tab for supporting single mothers is exclusively a feminine problem
+ # for which women alone should pay.
+ 
+ Stephenson, author of the above-mentioned book, would probably say that
+ the abondonment by men of the mothers is what usually makes them single,
+ therefore it is not an exclusively female problem.

setenv SARCASM ON

If women don't want to get pregnant, they shouldn't have sex.

K'Char
From: slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Companies can afford it, right?
Date: 7 Apr 92 13:32:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Apr7.133217.25957
Organization: University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame

In article <2679@unisql.UUCP> wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie) writes:
>In article <1992Apr6.161750.2113@news.nd.edu> slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:
>
>	That's the difference.  You want to have your cake AND eat it.
>So sorry.  Sounds like you need a rich husband...
>							W.rat

No, wharfie, I need to know that I have a job.  And I need to know 
that I do not have to be Wonder Woman to keep that job.

I wasn't talking homes in the country or second and third cars.  I 
am talking paying the rent and buying the kid shoes.  

If you feel comfortable in advocating a position that would make 
employment more difficult for a woman to hold, then I suppose there 
is nothing I can say to change your mind.

Leave the baby-making to the women with rich husbands, right?


Sue Larsen
slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu
From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: The Gender Lie
Date: 7 Apr 92 21:57:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: netlink.L7RViB1w164w
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

The following view of behavior is having a profound impact on society:
 
* For the most part, gender differences are acquired during development.
 
* For the most part, homosexuality is congenital.
 
 
A few observations on this view:
 
* The exact opposite is consistent with the central role of 
heterosexuality in reproduction and the central role of reproduction 
in evolution.
 
* Variations in the hormonal responses of males to environmental
stimuli are a almost entirely a function of sociosexual status.
 
* Hormones affect developmental paths as well as immediate responses.
 
* Western civilization has been most successful while holding the 
evolutionarily consistent view.  
 
* The inconsistent view first gained widespread currency via the 
feminist and gay movements in the early 1970's.  
 
* The American Psychiatric Association voted to take homosexuality 
off its list of pathologies around the same time.
 
* The incidence of extramarital sex, abortion, divorce, single and
step parenthood, child delinquency, infertility, birth control and
abortion all rose rose sharply during and after that time.  Child abuse, 
child molestation, rape, homosexuality and corrupt practices appear to 
have increased as well (ie: The socially acceptable explanation of all
 recent negative changes as "increased reporting" appears as sophistry
 given objectively measured correlations in related areas of society.)
 
* The standard of living, when adjusted to include the contribution of 
homemakers and intact families, had been rising until that time.  
 
* It has been declining since.
 
 
The conclusion:
 
On practical as well as theoretic grounds, the evolutionarily
inconsistent view of gender and orientation is profoundly destructive
and should be abandoned.

--                    
INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!nosc!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 435-6181
From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: What Does WoMan Want?
Date: 12 Apr 92 06:41:13 GMT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

What the Modern Woman wants (in order of importance):
 
1) Enough secure resources to raise a healthy child.
2) A genetically superior stud to impregnate them.
3) Other women to socialize with.
4) A man (just about any will do) to love them unconditionally.
5) Birth controlled sex with a man who loves them unconditionally.
 
 
What the Modern Man wants (in order of importance):
 
1) Sex with just about any woman of childbearing age.
2) Sex with a woman.
3) Sex with anything that has two legs.
4) Sex with anything.
5) To be punished for wanting sex so much even though he knows it is sexist.
        (This only applies to WASP males.)
6) A committed relationship.
7) Marriage.

--                    
INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!nosc!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 435-6181
Xref: sparky soc.men:8110 soc.women:8692 talk.politics.misc:17163 alt.rush-limbaugh:1083 alt.politics.correct:3591
From: rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: Men Are Not Cost Effective
Date: 7 Apr 92 19:03:43 GMT
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA

The author is just promoting SEXISM, ie, discriminating on account of sex.

A better solution would be to have those who COMMIT crimes (male or female)
pay the true costs of their crimes (to the victims) AND the true costs of
their incarceration.

And now, tongue-in-cheek.......

Each one of these criminals has something in commom, male or female.  
They all had a mother, a mother with complete and total control over
her own body.  The fact that these mothers are giving birth to criminals
is obscene.  Ban motherhood NOW!     :-)

I generally try to be a sensitive 90's kind of guy, but my gut reaction to
the authors hypothesis and proposal is that she doesn't have a clue.  Her
solution is classically liberal -- don't insist on personal responsibility
for criminals, and try to punish some group you perceive has an advantage.
Wonder if she considers herself a feminist?

-- 
Josh Rovero   (rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil) | or Internet 5346p@cc.nps.navy.mil 
Department of Oceanography, Code OC/Rv |      Bitnet 5346p@NAVPGS 
Naval Postgraduate School              |              
Monterey, CA  93943   (408) 646-2084   |
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: cloyd_j@apollo.hp.com (John Cloyd)
Subject: Re: Men Are Not Cost Effective
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 21:02:33 GMT

I guess if the problem of too many people in the prisons is mainly
a male problem, and the cost should be borne by males, then those
same males should be allowed to ease the burden through such options
as capital punishment right ? Somehow I don't think the author would
agree to allow such a decision to be made only by men, do you ? 

                                                      jc
From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Criminals
Date: 6 Apr 92 22:29:12 GMT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

Where men are outlawed, only outlaws are men.

--                    
INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!nosc!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 435-6181
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel)
Subject: Favorite Fantasies (was Re: Vanilla Sex in Canada)
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 18:31:21 GMT

charleen@ADS.COM (Charleen Bunjiovianna) writes:

>In article <1992Apr14.222819.27283@unixg.ubc.ca> schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz) writes:
>>
>>Acknowledging Canada's lust for censorship
>>doesn't make me any happier about its ongoing love affair with
>>Dworkin.

>Odd that Canada would prefer Dworkin, a relatively minor character in
>the _Amber_ series.  You'd think it would have liked Corwin or Merlin
>better.

>Oh, you were talking about Andrea "Doria" Dworkin.  Oops.

Wish that it were so: there she is, listing heavily to stern, rapidly
taking on water. Finally she is cast adrift; a few hours more, then she
turns turtle, slipping beneath the waves, and spouting mist like a whale
as she disappears forever. Brings tears to the eyes, a lump in the throat,
a profound sense of relief, doesn't it?

On the other hand, it is curiously satisfying to see anyone conform
so completely to our most negative stereotypes. Bring on Shylock!

Regards,
       Heiner biesel@thrall.sim.es.com
       who has the heart of a little boy. 

       He keeps it in a jar of formaldehyde under his bed.
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Ship of Fools?
Date: 8 Apr 92 18:08:32 GMT
Reply-To: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <KRANITZ.92Apr6104546@dspalley.mr.med.ge.com> kranitz@mr.med.ge.com (Wes Kranitz 4-6857 MRCE) writes:
>I think our friend Wharfie is living in a dream world. I've been there too

	Only time will tell.  If I'm wrong I've still got lots of years
left.  If I'm right...  

	The difference between me and these guys is that *I'm* not saying
"Life in the slow lane is an Invalid Choice, will Never Work, and anyone
who lives that way is a Brainwashed Dupe of Big Business"...  

	Live however makes you happy.  Why waste your time telling someone
else he's a fool for choosing his way?  My judo teacher spends every
waking moment on the mat or preparing to be on the mat.  Do I think he's
stupid for not spending that time in some other fashion?  On the contrary,
I respect his dedication and skill, and travel many miles to study under him.

	"To everything there is a season, and a time for every purpose
under Heaven." 
							the wharf rat
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Japanese Women's Lib
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com
Date: 6 Apr 92 11:10:01 GMT
Organization: M&E (Division of EDS), Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: rivero

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?
> 

  Simply WONDERFUL (the resultant confusion will wreak their economic
advantage)!




<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com Homo Cyberneticus-Computational Man  |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>