HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
Subject: 3 year old burn victim goes home
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com
Date: 9 Sep 92 14:12:50 GMT
Organization: Electronic Data Systems, Unigraphics Division, Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: ivler


  Little Sammy, the 3 year old who was kidnapped, locked in a car, and 
then set on fire by his mother's lesbian lover, was released from the 
hospital today.  Sammy had suffered third degree burns over
60% of his body, including being burned clear to the bone in many places,
including his right arm, which was covered during Sammy's TV appearence
today. Doctors had originally given him only a 1 in 10 chance to survive
at all and were pleased that he was able to go home, although he will
require extensive physical therepy for many years to come, and will not
recover the full use of his body.


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com  Middle-Aged Mutant Ninja Animator   |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|   Cal me silly, call me barbaric, call me irresponsible, but it occurs |
|  to me that torching a small child justifies the death penelty in the  |
|  slowest and most painful manner allowed by law.                       |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
From: sam@hpsad.sad.hp.com (Vicky Hansen)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: WOMEN ARE NOT PAYED LESS THAN MEN
Date: 11 Sep 92 22:10:02 GMT
Organization: HP Signal Analysis Division - Rohnert Park, CA

In soc.women, rdc@netcom.com (MR. COMMUNIST) writes:
>   Assumption: 
>   	Women systematically are payed less for doing the same job.
>
>   Implication:
>   	If managers could hire women to do the same quality job and
>   	pay them less, they would only hire women.  They get the same
>   	work done and for less cost!  Companies made up of only women
>   	would dominate every marketplace with low costs.
>
>   Contradiction:
>   	This doesn't happen.
>
>   Conclusion:
>   	Women are not payed less for doing the same job.  They are
>   payed less for doing a worse job, and payed more for doing a better job.

Actually, women who are trained to do the high paying jobs *are* in big
demand.  Managers cannot hire women to do the same job because they do
not exist.  Women will have the same pay scales as men when our society
  1. Has men and women share domestic responsibilities equally
  2. Educates all people according to their skills instead of their gender
  3. Gets rid of the "men's" work vs. "women's" work split (note: male
     secretaries, female engineers, male nurses, etc. are all in short
     supply).
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Subject: Re: Father Notification Reconsidered
Date: 11 Sep 92 05:08:33 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <stricher-090992110150@stayman.ocean.fsu.edu> stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul) writes:
>In article <1992Sep09.015619.1497@microsoft.com>, jenk@microsoft.com (Jen
>Kilmer) wrote:
>> This is where pre-nuptial agreements come in and should be enforced.
>
>[interesting prenup covering pregnancy removed]
>
>> What I don't like is that courts do not always enforce such agreements
>> and that it's not REQUIRED that pre-nuptials be done. They should be.
>
>As it stands, without some change in the basic law, they would *never*
>enforce such an agreement as you proposed. 

I'd see nothing wrong with changing the law in this manner. Note
There are some creatures called 'adults'. Part of my definition
of these creatures is that they do what they say they will do.
Hence if two adults made such an agreement, they could abide
by it --- and the court be damned. If BOTH parties request the 
same terms, wouldn't the court normally agree to that? (okay,
my naive-ness is showing). 

I have known a couple who decided no 'maintence' was needed,
but the court ordered it -> so each month he wrote her a check,
they photocopied it, then she signed it back over to him. HE
PAID; letter of the law obeyed.

>> Don, I don't think we should allow it - we should REQUIRE it.
>
>Well, as other people have put it to me when I said I would require a
>prenup,
>this is what some/many/most women would say: don't you love me and trust
>me?

I would think that some men would say that as well, don't you?
I'm not the only woman around who usually makes more money 
than the men she dates, am I? :-) :-) :-)

Actually, I'm more in favor of prenups because it can introduce
all kinds of disscussion that otherwise might be put off.

>Of course, if you *require* it, it gets me off that hook... :)

Indeed. And as I pointed out before, it forces discussion of 
things like "Do YOU want kids? What do YOU want to do if I get
pregnant? What do YOU want to do if one of us decides to quit  
working and go back to school?" etc.

-jen
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: how to tell a good programmer
From: alanb@sdl.mdcbbs.com (Alan Braggins)
Date: 14 Sep 92 16:07:34 GMT
 <laura.715858993@vipunen.hut.fi><1992Sep7.154918.11940@panix.com><SK73171.92Sep9230315@korppi.cs.tut.fi> <920@nazgul.UUCP>
Organization: Shape Data (Division of EDS), Cambridge UK
In-reply-to: bright@nazgul.UUCP's message of 11 Sep 92 17:57:56 GMT

>>>>> On 11 Sep 92 17:57:56 GMT, bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright) said:

> In article <SK73171.92Sep9230315@korppi.cs.tut.fi> sk73171@cs.tut.fi (Kiiskil{ Sami) writes:
> /There isn't any easy way to test if
> /someone is a good programmer or not. If he has good papers it however is
> /more likely him to be better than someone with poor grades. Hiring a
> /person without any papers is in that case more like guessing.

> I've both interviewed for and been interviewed for programming positions. The
> number one way to tell if a programmer is any good is to ask them to bring in
> a sample of their best work (presumably a source listing). Then, ask them to
> walk through and explain it to you.

This got me my first job after college - since then the code I've written has
belonged to my employers, apart from small fragments.
Last interview I had I was given some code and a manual for the language it was
written in, then asked to walk through an explanation (after some time to prepare).
--
Alan Braggins, Shape Data (A Division of EDS Ltd), Cambridge, UK +44-223-316673
   "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
 "My employer does not necessarily share my views - but I'm working on it."
From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (Harel Barzilai)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.activsim
Subject: IPS: Labor:Women Getting Raw Deal (UK)
Date: 10 Sep 92 22:19:45 GMT
Organization: The Ohio State University Department of Computer and Information Science

Article posted to misc.activism.progressive

    apart from italy, britain was the european country with the
    slowest rate of closing the gender gap for salary payments.
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    ''in britain firms have more controls and there is evidence that
    they use wage levels rather than productivity as a means of
    competition. this encourages the development of a low wage economy
    with poor productivity,'' writes dr. rubery.
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    the broader tale that these statistics tell is that britain is
    fast becoming a low-wage society; since 1971, women have accounted
    for 90 percent of the increase in the labour market, displacing
    1.3 million men from work, the report said.
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Topic 203       IPS:Labor: Women Getting Raw Deal 
hrcoord apc.labour       3:10 pm  Sep 10, 1992 
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From: Human Rights Coordinator <hrcoord> 
Subject: IPS:Labor: Women Getting Raw Deal 

	[...]
	[...]
From: sam@hpsad.sad.hp.com (Vicky Hansen)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Lawyer Speak
Date: 4 Sep 92 17:36:07 GMT
Organization: HP Signal Analysis Division - Rohnert Park, CA

In soc.women, pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke) writes:

  >How much do you want to bet that in ten to fifteen years we'll start hearing 
  >about how child support victimizes single mothers by keeping them out of the
  >work force, and how they will need supplemental payments for a readjustment
  >period?

I wish I got that kind of money!
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Feminists ignore Cosmetics?
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 18:44:03 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.045535.3618@lugb.latrobe.edu.au> 9125113g@lux.latrobe.edu.au (Mitch Davis) writes:
>What really amuses me is the thought that you women (rash generalization, 
>I know!) need a BOOK (Naomi Whatever) to tell you you don't need to look 
>like the cover of Cosmopolitan to be loved and to be lovable.

While I agree in spirit with what you've written, the point needs to
be made that many (most?) women do feel compelled to look like the
cover of Cosmo to be attractive.  It's not amusing in that sense, it's
sad and painful.

One of the best things Naomi Wolf points out is that while ads, tv,
etc. may tell women that they need to be skinny, many men still are
attracted to non-skinny women.  She cites a study where women chose
thinner female bodies as being more attractive to men.  The men chose
not-so-thin bodies as attractive to them.  So, many women think men
want them to be thinner than men actually do.

>Face it, about 90% (rough unsupportable guess) of women manage to attract
>a long-term mate (in the biological sense).  You really think that if women
>stopped acting like performing seals with the makeup and the shoulderpads
>and the "I'm so fat" routine, that the number of successful pairings 
>would go down?

Wolf makes the point that women at least accepting the way they look
would increase the number of successful pairings.  Who are you happier
with?  The person who has some physical faults, but is happy with
her/himself or that same person eternally discontented with
her/himself?

>Any man who thinks that the value of a potential mate is solely
>reflected in their physical appearance, can't be considered a sensible
>choice by smart females.

Once again, it's not even the men so much, it's the images that women
see as being female, fit, sexy, attractive.  They internalize it and
it makes them miserable.  Haven't you ever been with a woman you
thought was wonderfully sexy, compliment her, and had her say, "Oh,
no!  My thighs are too big, my breasts are too small, etc."?

>(Who believes that the "empowering of women" is an act of revenge, and
>would simply be the same as what women get now, with-the-words-"men"
>crossed-out-and-the-word-"Women"-written-on-with-crayon.  Let's ditch
>the "empowerment", and have a bit of rational equality.)

I don't understand this at all.
From: bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Fun with probabilities
Date: 9 Sep 92 17:14:16 GMT
Reply-To: bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright)
Organization: Zortech, Seattle

In article <715965054@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
/Consumers Report claimed that condoms are 85% effective.  In other words,
/over one year of using condoms, there is 15% probability for an unwanted
/pregnancy.  In 7 years, the expectation is more than 1...

Ooops! Over seven years, the probability of having an unwanted pregnancy
is *NOT* .15*7, but is 1 - .85^7, or 68%. Probabilities cannot be more
than 1.
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: pdj7631@zeus.tamu.edu (Unbeliever)
Subject: looking for a quote
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 16:15:00 GMT

I have heard a quote that goes something like this:

"I do not know  what the word 'feminist' means, except that I am called one
whenever my behavior differentiates me from a doormat."

Does anyone know the proper wording and source?
______
\    /___   Illithid  (Paul D. Jones)    Texas A&M, especially the Corps
 \  /   /                                of Cadets, stands staunchly behind
  \/\  /    PDJ7631@zeus.tamu.edu        each and every one of my opinions.
     \/
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Re: Missed Opportunity....
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 20:33:14 GMT

bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
] In article <1992Sep4.235739.7656@col.hp.com> mikel@col.hp.com (Mike Lopke) writes:
] >drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
] >> ps: small clue - things that are not yet are not yet.
] >> their potential to become something is there, but they
] >> are not yet that which they might become. Thus the loss
] >> of that which is not yet is NOT the loss of the 'thing_in_itself'
] >> but the loss of the 'thing_in_its_potential_to_become.'
] 
] >small clue - Derisive sarcasm of anothers's pain and loss is not appropriate.
] 
] Big clue:  drieux wasn't using derisive sarcasm.
] 
] >eg: Stop crying you stupid lady.  It was born dead.  You think its a what?
] >Baaaaaaa Haaaaaa  Haaaaa ho ho hee hee  
] 
] That isn't even close to what drieux was talking about.  He certainly
] understands their loss.  However, he recognises that a person who
] wants a baby and has a miscarriage has imbued the fetus with all sorts
] of characteristics not necessarily held by a person having an
] abortion.  

Getting CLOSE....

What I was trying to point out is that there are a LOT
of Missed opportunities in life, and a decent way to
handle the problem is to deal with REALITY as IT IS.

I may not like the fact that any given Lesbian MAY
turn me down for some silly and frivilous reason....

But I really am annoying a lot of folks when I whine
about this fact in public....

I would recommend to any who wish to get a grip on this
Glasser's Book on 'Reality Therapy' - its a lovely way
to start dealing with What IS, rather than 'what might have been.'

Folks are even now beginning to notice that there is
a Major ANGST POINT developed with 'wedding ceremonies'
as one or both parties may have built up unreasonable
and unfulfillable expectations about the event, and
when they FAIL to live up to that expectations, said
person then interprets this FAILURE in a personal manner
and uses it as a club to beat on themselves....

Trust me, THIS I understand....

I have tried for years to learn to live as IF I were
just another nice kid who grew up in suburban america
and understands the cultural minutia that, well, 'everyone Knows.'

ITS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!

Overseas GI Brats lived in a different world, and
are DIFFERENT. And the sooner we accept that fact,
and 'get over it' - the sooner we can get back to
just living a normal life.....

{ its not our fault that wimp liberal useless parasitical
whiney civilian brat children can not set up an "L" shaped
ambush, and don't know the front side from the back side
of a Claymore.... THAT IS THEIR PROBLEM AND THEIR PERSONAL
DEFECT FOR THEM TO WORK THROUGH.... }

ciao
drieux




-- 
If I have Told You Once, I've Told You a Thousand Times:
To Keep Good Girls From Going Bad,
Put them back in the Refrigerator.
This Also Works for Stale NFS Handles.
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Subject: Re: Father Notification Reconsidered
Date: 11 Sep 92 05:20:43 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <73740020@hpsad.sad.hp.com> sam@hpsad.sad.hp.com (Vicky Hansen) writes:
[pre-nupts allow stating why someone is getting married,
 terms for divorce, etc]
>
>What would the penalty be for changing their mind (as in "bound by what they
>agreed to) if not divorce?  Over the "life" of a marriage (hopefully 50 years
>or so), people *will* change.  

Legal agreements can be ammended, can they not? Revised? etc?
I agree with you, this would be necessary.

>Thus the pre-nup concept needs to be a living
>document, not a one-shot thing.  

yup!

-jen
From: tom@horizon.com (Tom Impelluso)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Women in engineering ( help ..)
Date: 7 Sep 92 23:04:08 GMT
Organization: Science Horizons, Inc.

peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:


>>I am a graduate student in engineering, a minority, doing a thesis on " Women,
>>engineering and creativity". i am interested in knowing about the opinion of ot
>>her's about why there is not much interest in women about becoming engineer. I
>>am pursuing two traditional line of search:
>>1. nature: women have different cognitive abilities than men and do not have mu
>>           ch interest in men's pursuit of dominating nature. As most of the en
>>           gineering is. More right brain with thicker connection between left
>>           and right brain. (corpus colossum)
>> 
>>2.Nurture: women are discouraged , verbally or non verbally to pursue abstract
>>           topics such as math, science and engineering. Feminist perspective.
>>

>You're doing this thesis work in an *engineering* department??? 

>							--  Michal



Just look at what her thesis is!

1) she assumes some moral deficiency on the part of men:
   "men's pursuit of dominating nature."

2) she assumes woman are victims:
   " women are discouraged"

And she calls this "traditional line of search"

I don't think this research is going to get very far.
Seems pretty arrogant to me.

Tom
Newsgroups: soc.women,talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.bush,talk.politics.clinton
From: clc5q@hemlock.cs.Virginia.EDU (Clark L. Coleman)
Subject: Re: Women/Choice/Guns/Defense/Welfare vs. the '92 Election
Organization: University of Virginia Computer Science Department
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 15:13:20 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.214437.4771@dg-rtp.dg.com> meyers@rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers) writes:
>[Posted for haga@turnip.chass.ncsu.edu (Fran Haga) --
>she's still working on netnews access.  Soon ...   :-]
>-------------------------------------------------------
>1988 VOTES FOR DUKAKIS OR BUSH, by GENDER, AS A PERCENT
>OF THE WHOLE 
>
>                   3MALE     FEMALE
>           DDDDDDDDEDDDDDDDDEDDDDDDDD4
>  DUKAKIS          3  14.8  3  25.8  3
>                   CDDDDDDDDEDDDDDDDD4
>  BUSH             3  28.7  3  30.7  3
>                   @DDDDDDDDADDDDDDDDY
>
>Chi-Square Significance Value = .00034
>Gamma = -.23843

Besides the disjointed drivel I deleted, these are obivously bogus statistics.
They show Bush with 59.4% of the vote, to 40.6% for Dukakis. The actual totals
were about 54% for Bush to about 46% for Dukakis.

The "Chi-Square Significance Value" sure does give it a pseudoscientific
appearance, though, doesn't it?

Try getting your facts straight, and worry about getting Usenet access when
you have something accurate to tell us.
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is seldom that any liberty is lost all at once." David Hume
|||  clc5q@virginia.edu (Clark L. Coleman)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Father Notification Reconsidered
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 18:01:16 GMT

In article <92249.084117RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET> <RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
>         The problem here is, are  you willing to penalise ALL  men because
>    some men are violent and irresponsible?  What the currently fashionable
>    position seems to hold is  that since some men are  irresponsible, then
>    no man has the RIGHT to know.   If the woman wishes, she can tell  him.
>    However,  the  decision  whether  he  IS  entitled to know, is entirely
>    hers. And if she is unreasonable about it, that it just his tough
>    luck. I personally think that this "part of the woman's body" stuff
>    is just plain nonsense.  It over-stretches  the notion "part of one's
>    body" just as calling a foetus a person overstretches the notion of a
>    person.  The main thing here is that the father is likely to have
>    (though many do not) a GENUINE interest in the foetus which goes
>    BEYOND the issue of financial responsibilty.  Certainly a "wham, bang,
>    thank you ma'am" man may think that that is all there is to it but I
>    believe many of us have somewhat deeper values.

The problem I see with spouse notification is analogous to parental
notification.  In good families/relationships, the parents or man will
be notified.  There will be discussions as to what the woman should
do, how it affects her/their lives, etc.  It's only in bad
relationships where the parents or spouse won't be notified.

And if the man is notified and the woman wants an abortion but he
doesn't want her to have one, what then?  Can he force her to remain
pregnant because he wants a child?

>    The point is that men do have rights and some men may react violently
>    when these rights are invaded.  But that is not then a legitimate
>    reason to DENY rights to men.  We do not want people to take the law
>    into their own hands.  But that is all the more reason that there
>    SHOULD be a law where they can plead for justice.  To deny justice is
>    to sow the seeds of violence.

Plead for justice?  How so?  "Please, your honor, force my wife/
girlfriend to carry this fetus to term.  I know she doesn't want to be
pregnant, but I want a child and I have to use her body for that."
From: lams@acfcluster.nyu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Women are inferior
Date: 5 Sep 92 15:16:45 GMT
Organization: New York University

In article <1992Sep4.101938.1@mdcbbs.com>, rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:
> In article <1992Sep3.220909.1391@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, joni@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (joni.dunlap) writes:
>> In article <1992Sep3.093001.1@mdcbbs.com> rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:
>>>In article <73740010@hpsad.sad.hp.com>, sam@hpsad.sad.hp.com (Vicky Hansen) writes:
>>>> In soc.women, karypis@epx.cis.umn.edu () writes:
>>>> 
>>>>>>  It is true...  Women were not created equal.  They are clearly inferior
>>>>>>  to men....
>>>> 
>>>> I will make the rash assumption that you are male.
>>>> Then I will stoop to your level and answer:
>>>>     Isn't it just like a man to make a blanket statement with absolutely
>>>>     no details or supporting evidence.
>>>
>>>  You SUCKER!  :)  My first assumption was that this was posted by a woman
>>>to try and make men look bad, else why the anonymity?
>>>
>> 
>> NO I think it was written by a man so your assumption would be that this
>> was posted by a woman to try and make men look bad therefore making women
>> look even worse, else why the anonymity? :) :)
>> 
>> Joni :)
> -- 
>   No, this was posted by a woman, who assumed we'ld THINK she was a woman and
> then decide it HAD to b a man because she, er, he, I mean, ummmm, oh GEE
> lookatthetimeIgottaLOTofworktocatchuponbye!
> 
]
    No, No, No! This was posted by the master mind of both woman and man
    they figure that your assumption would be men posted to make women
    look bad or women posted to make men look bad, but not both, to make
    man and woman look bad.  Just by the fact that both man and women 
    would be playing this game of pointing fingers.  So, both man and
    woman look very silly.  Thus, it must be both a man and a woman behind
    this, else why the anonymity?   

    But, then again maybe someone just wanted to get everyone to play 
    this game.  :)

    -Steve  No, an alien posted! Hee! Hee!