HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ejh@khonshu.colorado.edu (Edward J. Hartnett)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: more thoughts on a new slant to rape stats
Date: 8 Apr 92 21:23:40 GMT
Article-I.D.: colorado.1992Apr8.212340.8138
Organization: Cooperative Institute for Research in the Environmental Sciences

In article <1992Apr8.183415.12789@acsu.buffalo.edu> camurphy@acsu.buffalo.edu (Cindy) writes:
>it is NOT a leap, it is an ANALOGY.  rape does not come out of nowhere.
>rape is a product of unequal circumstances, and fuckked up notions about
                                                 ^^^^^^^
>sexuality and power.
>

	Is it fuckked or fucked? I guess you can't just look it up in a 
dictionary, can you?

>
>backlash against feminism comes from deep-seated misogyny, which you
>should examine, and a fear of threat against male privelege.
>

	Actually, I must disagree. At least in some cases (i.e. me) it
is rather that I have never discriminated against women (really!) and
it's a shame that some feminists lump me in with sexists, just because
I'm a man. It's kind of the way I feel about affirmitive action. I was
raised in a very enlightened household, and thanks to my parents,
rarely have had any problems with overcoming my own racism and sexism.
So why should I pay for the misdeeds of the rest of the white men who
do? Of course, the reason is, because everybody pays for it one way or
another. ("Pray not for a lighter burdern, but for a stronger back")

	I recently lived for a year in Ireland, where there is far
less violence of any kind, and after that, America saddens me a lot
because so many people (men and women) are so afraid to have any
interaction with the people around them. Women who work in the same
building avert their eyes from me when we pass in the hall; they seem
to be afraid to talk to me (or else I'm increadibly ugly). What the
hell, it's no way to live. The really sad thing is that I really don't
think it makes them any safer to avoid talking or looking at
strangers. Certainly it's safer not to go out to lonley places with
strange men, but just to talk, say hello? Maybe I'm wrong, I don't
know.

	It just seems to me that to live your life in terror of
strangers is such a tragic thing. 
Xref: sparky soc.women:8733 soc.men:8164
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: I'm not a bigot, I was making a joke (Re: Playboy)
From: econrad@cs.wright.edu (Eric van Fossen Conrad)
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 22:52:40 GMT
Organization: Wright State University

From article <1992Apr7.052057.13699@watserv1.waterloo.edu>, by dmcanzi@watserv1.waterloo.edu (David Canzi):
> In article <9778@bgsuvax.bgsu.edu> valdes@bgsu.edu (oscar Valdes) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr3.064636.6774@watserv1.waterloo.edu> dmcanzi@watserv1.waterloo.edu (David Canzi) writes:
>>	[trying to justify himself]
>>>The parenthetical comment was meant to strike people as humorous, but
>>>perhaps humour is an unfamiliar concept for you.  Try looking it up in
>>>a dictionary.
>>
>>	It seems to be quite common, and not only in the net, to justify
>>bigotry and insulting remarks by claiming it was an attempt to be
>>humorous.  A perfect example in show biz is, of course, Andrew Dice Clay.
> 
> The comment was that I could buy certain pornographic magazines with a
> clear conscience because they don't carry tobacco advertising.  The
> offensive implication of this statement, I presume, is that I tolerate
> pornography.

But think of the poor unfortunate exploited models that these
magazines kidnap and pay starvation wages to!  These unfortunate women
could be getting a whopping 4 or 5 bucks an hour flipping burgers instead
of the modelling fees they get for getting nekkid.  Come to think of
it, by taking these poor souls out of the labor market for burger
flippers, they are driving up the cost of every burger you eat.  Jeez
man, get sensitive!

And of course North Carolinians and Jesse Helms will be most definitely
upset by your un-American commie-socialist-pinko-liberal stance on
tobacco.  Think of the damage you are doing to the economy!  Heck, the
GNP just dropped 10% because of you!

> This is the first time I have ever seen a person accused of bigotry for
> what he tolerates rather than for what he doesn't tolerate.

Clearly un-correct thinking if I ever heard it.  A bigot is whatever the
self-styled feministas decide it is.  So if such a person accuses you
of bigotry, then you should repent!  And to use "humor" to defend an
obviously un-correct opinion?  Shocking!  The very notion!

Let's face it.  Pornographic magazines like Cosmopolitan and Vogue are
a clear danger to everyone.  They must be stamped out immediately.
Put people to work flipping burgers -- a productive job for everyone!

-- 
-- Eric Conrad
This space for rent.
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Petition on Gender Violence
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 18:53:49 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.173624.1@mdcbbs.com> rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:

)  I cannot sign this petition, even though I am opposed to violence against
)women, on the grounds that this petition, as written, addresses violence 
)against women to the exclusion of violence directed against men.

Ditto.
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: <None>
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com
Date: 6 Apr 92 12:47:29 GMT
Organization: M&E (Division of EDS), Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: lems

In article <1992Apr3.020423.17787@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
> In article <1992Apr1.102000.1@mdcbbs.com> rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:
>>  So, Playboy presents women as sex objects, and men as cash objects.
> 
>>  Sounds fair enough.    I wanted sex from my ex-wife, and she took
>>all my cash instead!
> 
> 	Well, Mike Rivero, if your ex-wife had been a housewife,
> that's what she was supposed to do, isn't it? :-)
> 
> 	After all, in the traditionalist arrangement, the husband is
> supposed to earn the family's money and the wife to spend it, right? :-)
-- 

  That was the original deal, but then the sex stopped, the child was aborted
and the housework abndoned to yours truly while she worked on 
her career.

  But she still took the money.  :)



<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com Homo Cyberneticus-Computational Man  |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore)
Subject: Re: Clarification of Male Bashing, etc. post
Reply-To: shore@tc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 15:21:24 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.055439.2373@ducvax.auburn.edu>, kenneth@ducvax.auburn.edu writes:
| > From what I've seen in a few postings lately, is a crybaby mentality.
| > From what I've seen, certain women are basically saying, "Oh, I got
| > pregnant, and I want an abortion, but poor me, I didn't think to use 
| > anything at the time; isn't that the man's responsibility?"
 
| Let me clarify.  The above statement is a paraphrase of statements I've read
| here on the net.  

Wow, I'll say, and a loose paraphrase at that.  Care to document
it?
-- 
       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu
From: khafagi@egr.msu.edu (Bassem K. Khafagi)
Newsgroups: soc.women,msu.grads,soc.culture.misc,soc.misc
Subject: Foreign Students / Faculty
Date: 8 Apr 92 02:36:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: msuinfo.1992Apr8.023624.8198
Reply-To: khafagi@egr.msu.edu (Bassem K. Khafagi)
Organization: Michigan State University
Originator: khafagi@frith.egr.msu.edu

I'm doing research on the "Influence of Foreign Students and Faculty on the
U.S Engineering (Industry & Education).  I need some feedback from Engineers, 
American students (Grad. & Under.), Faculty, and any interested person on the
following subject: (I will put my ideas in questions form)

PS. I will use "FE" to stand for "Foreign Students, Faculty, and/or Engineers"


* 1. Do you feel FE are assets or burden to the system

* 2. Do you beleive they discourage women or minorities from the eng. profession

* 3. Do they have any impact on the Salaries (for Faculty or Engineers)

* 4. How the system can benifit from their existence in the U.S.

* 5. For Students taught by Foreign Faculty or TA's, What is your feedback

* 6. Do they need more admin. work (Burden)

* 7. Do you have any thoughts or Ideas on the subject "not covered here"


*** PLEASE, e-Mail your comments since I don't read this news group. THNX....

Bassem
Newsgroups: tcd.talk,soc.women,soc.men,talk.rape,talk.abortion
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Subject: Re: A rather peculiar letter.
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, San Diego Division
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 22:55:16 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.175551.12680@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>The protection for non-enumerated rights was meant to Constitutionally
>protect rights that were guaranteed by other sources besides the
>Constitution (notably English Common Law and State Constitutions),
>*not* to let the Supreme Court decide that x is a right.

Elizabeth, we've discusssed this before in email, so I won't go into it
in great depth here, but I just wanted to say for the net at large that
I'm not convinced Adams or Jefferson would agree with you on what
the protection for non-enumerated rights was "meant" to be for here.

Adrienne Regard
From: clong@romulus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Suppose pornography DOES encourage violence?
Keywords: first amendment, KKK, offensive material
Date: 15 Apr 92 14:41:05 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1992Apr14.031047.21228@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, Paul Ciszek writes:

> Let us suppose, for a moment, that the claims of some that pornography
> encourages violence towards women is true.

Existence encourages violence.  In fact, I can say without a doubt
that everyone who was ever violent was alive at some point in the past.

If doing something doesn't harm anyone or is victimless, it would be
immoral to make it illegal.
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,talk.rape
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Porn vs rape
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 06:14:13 GMT

It turns out there are a few correlative studies on porn vs. rape.
One study (Baron and Straus) found a correlation between state rape
rates (per 100,000 people) and total magazine sales rate (per 100 males) for
Chic, Club, Gallery, Genisis, Hustler, Oui, Penthouse, and Playboy.

It's not clear what was controlled for by this study, however.  And
the authors subsequently found a 'violence approval' index that eliminated
the correlation in 40 of the 50 states (they claimed trouble with the index
in the remaining ten states).  Also, about half the raw correlation comes
from two states - Nevada and Alaska.

Another study (Joseph Scott) found no correlation between state rape
rates and total numbers of adult theaters and adult bookstores, but did find
a correlation with subscription rates to 'outdoor' magazines (such
as Field and Stream and American Riflemen.

Psychological studies were a mixed bag, but at least one study found that
Playboy magazine had a calming effect on previously angered men.

Other studies found that violent, exciting, or sexually explicit movies
(more explicit than Playboy) had an aggravating effect on previously angered
men.

There were too many combinations of different conditions for me to remember
all the results, but in general these studies angered a man (or woman) by
having an experimenter give them electrical shocks, and then measured the
frequency of shocks they administered as 'revenge' at a later time.  Some
studies did not anger the men, and others introduced various time delays.
The exact results varied depending on circumstances.

Another study yielded the highly 'politically incorrect' result that women
were turned on by _fantasy_ rape films (with little actual violence) as
measured by a vaginal photodetector.  Response to nudes was fairly low
by women (high for men as measured by a penile plethysmograph (sp?)), and
I think (not 100% sure) that both sexes had fairly strong responses to
explicit sex, and a generaly low response to violent rape scenes.
From: shortell@spock.ecs.umass.edu (Laurel L Shortell)
Subject: Re: Men and women talking
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 13:45:42 GMT

In article <gblj7k.aahz@netcom.com> aahz@netcom.com (Aahzmandius) writes:
>I find it interesting that the thread "Request : Dating advice from
>women" has spawned so few flames.  I normally haunt soc.singles, and
>it's been nice seeing so many "new" faces.  In the past, though, a
>thread x-posted to all three newsgroups was a virtual guarantee of a
>flame-war.  Any ideas on why we all started talking normally for once,
>instead of screaming at each other?

I just hit "k" every time the above title appears and voila!, 
I have nothing to flame about. I am not against the subject,
as it may help some men out if they are asking sincerely, but
I prefer to remove myself from topics that will annoy me
unnecessarily and not inspire me to give productive input.


Xref: sparky soc.women:8667 alt.fan.q:392
From: deja-q@access.digex.com (Lin Yon Q)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.fan.q
Subject: Re: feminists are bad in bed (was: Lust, Violence, Pornograpy, and Rap
Date: 6 Apr 92 23:01:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: access.1992Apr6.230141.7494
Organization: Express Access Public Access UNIX, Greenbelt, Maryland USA

In article <1992Apr2.122720.1@mdcbbs.com> rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:

>  My ex-wife knows what my opinion is of her, and that I am not shy voicing
>it. However, as those facts I am able to prove would get her fired ( and
>possibly arrested) and increase the financial burden to me, I am a bit 
>more selective in who I share opinions with, avoiding mentions of her 
>past to anyone in her chosen career field. I have also avoided using 
>her name, even here, and since she never took my last name, she is safe 
>in her anonymity (as is my bank balance).

Should be trivial to search the divorce decrees in your home state to find
the name, then send the Usenet archives to her so she can sue your ass from
here to hell and back.  sure hope that those accusations are substantiated.
Sure sounds like real libel to me, especially since you've already
admited that these "facts" could cause her damage (getting her fired and
possibly arrested).

Think again about what is substantiated and what is not, Rivero.

Q
Xref: sparky soc.women:8725 soc.singles:10639 alt.fan.q:395
From: mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mikeey J. Lin)
Newsgroups: alt.personal,soc.women,soc.singles,alt.fan.q
Subject: Re: LOOKING FOR NANCY @ BRANDEIS UNIV. IN WALTHAM, MA.
Date: 8 Apr 92 04:53:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: galileo.1992Apr8.045351.18869
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1992Apr7.080601.16597@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> wasylik@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Michael Wasylik) writes:

>Let me guess...  you're still waiting for the Harmonic Convergence?
>I know, I know... it can be so frustrating.  But let's all just hold hands,
>rub our crystals, and maybe smoke some weed.  After all, we're all human,
>aren't we, no matter how stupid we are.

	"Look slime! Just because no women will speak to you doesn't mean
that there can't be communication between the sexes. Hopefully, with education
and communication ignorant and narrow-minded people, and I use that term 
loosely to include you, will be able to cope with today's society. Perhaps
if some tolerance, communication, and understanding were exercised by all
people we would not have quite as many conflicts in society."

					ajg4_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu

Hello Michael,        

	Just thought you might be interested in a comment by someone here
who was "slightly disgusted" by your comment. 

					      Mikeey
				  mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu

PS My dog ate my crystals. :)

>-- 
>Mw

>[ Michael Wasylik                     ><    There goes the                 ]
>[ wasylik@casbah.acns.nwu.edu         ><    neighborhood...                ]
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: kenneth@ducvax.auburn.edu
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Clarification of Male Bashing, etc. post
Date: 16 Apr 92 10:54:39 GMT

> From what I've seen in a few postings lately, is a crybaby mentality.
> From what I've seen, certain women are basically saying, "Oh, I got
> pregnant, and I want an abortion, but poor me, I didn't think to use 
> anything at the time; isn't that the man's responsibility?"

Let me clarify.  The above statement is a paraphrase of statements I've read
here on the net.  It does not refer to anyone in particular.  It is solely
the condensation of some obvious anti-male rhetoric that I've read in this
newsgroup in recent days.  It is NOT a direct quote, just a conglomoration
of things that I've read here lately.  I am just making a point.
An honest point.

Ken
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Women
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com
Date: 14 Apr 92 10:08:45 GMT
Organization: M&E (Division of EDS), Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: mdhc

In article <1992Apr12.065653.15330@austin.eds.com>, mayoff@austin.eds.com (Rob Mayoff) writes:
> In article <1992Apr10.043120.4192@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> lavellin@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Joseph Lavelline) writes:
>>
>>Some girls like to buy new shoes and others like driving trucks and 
>>wearing tatoos.
> 
> There's only one thing that they all like a bunch:
> Oh, girls, they wanna have lunch.
> Yeah, girls just wanna have lunch.
> 
> rob
-- 

  "Here's to the ladies who 'lunch'!
Everybody laugh!
  Lounging in their caf-
tans and planning a brunch...
  On their own behalf"

  "Another day to disaprove.
Another brilliant zinger.
  Another reason not to move.
Another Vodka Stinger"

  "A toast to that invincible bunch!
The dinosaurs surviving the crunch.
  Let's here it for the ladies who lunch!
Everybody Rise!  Everybody Rise!"

			"Ladies who lunch" (excerpt)
			Steven Sondheim - "Company"  






Thankyoudon'tcalluswe'llcallyouNEXT!



<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com Homo Cyberneticus-Computational Man  |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|   I don't have anything against you...........but I wish I did!  :)    |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
From: dpaxton@ut-emx.uucp (Debi Paxton)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Choices and victims
Date: 25 Mar 92 22:03:25 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin; Austin, Texas

In article <1992Mar24.093637.21061@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>In article <623@nazgul.UUCP> bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright) writes:
>(deleted stuff about choices and victims)
>
>This worked so well for the mugging of Leon Gross, I had to see how it
>works for someone who was abused as a child.  So, let's see...
>
>The child made a number of choices up to the abuse, during the abuse,
>and after the abuse.
>
I do not believe that any of the people who have posted on this topic
to date--responsibility for one's choices--have implied that abused
children are responsible for their abuse.

However, often abused children grow up into adults who, consciously
or maybe more often unconsciously, perpetuate that abuse because they
allow themselves to continue to be abused.  After all, if the most
love and attention you've received was accompanied by abuse, it's
a logical assumption that to get love you have to withstand a certain
amount of abuse.  And so, these adult children of abusive families
often stay in abusive love relationships, accept abusive behavior
from employers, acquiantences, etc., that adults who learned healthy
self-protective behaviors would not tolerate.

Part of recovery from the lasting effects of growing up abused is
learning what we are responsible for and what we are not.  We are
not responsible for everything that happens to us, but we are
responsible for how we react, and whether we give someone the
opportunity to abuse us twice.  Taking responsibility for our
actions is really empowering, because it allows us to see choices,
and thus make changes and get out of unhealthy situations.

When I was kneedeep in a lot of shit I really resented those who
seemed to imply that I was perhaps responsible for some of it.
(I am speaking as an *adult* and not as a child.)  It was not
pleasant to look at myself and acknowledge that I was repeating
a lot of learned, self-defeating behaviors.  But the only way
to change that behavior was to first take responsibility for it.
-- 
I count my blessings, I don't count my faults
I like to dance like the dickens to the West Texas Waltz	(jd gilmore)

Debi Paxton                             		dpaxton@emx.utexas.edu
Xref: sparky soc.women:8799 soc.men:8238 talk.rape:850 talk.abortion:14356 rec.arts.sf.misc:1318
From: rstevew@deeptht.santa-cruz.ca.us (Richard Steven Walz)
Newsgroups: tcd.talk,soc.women,soc.men,talk.rape,talk.abortion,rec.arts.sf.misc
Subject: Re: A rather peculiar letter.
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 92 17:32:51 GMT
Organization: The Armory

In article <1992Apr1.201558.21131@lambda.msfc.nasa.gov> puckett@lambda.msfc.nasa.gov (Jim Puckett) writes:
>rstevew@deeptht.santa-cruz.ca.us (Richard Steven Walz) writes:
>>ability to connect remembered incidents. If you don't remember being,
>>then you weren't! It's as simple as that. 
>
>On the subject at large, I have no opinion.
>
>However, being an ex-drunk, I will here point out that there are 
>large areas of 1883-85 that I don't remember. However, there are
>records that indicate that I indeed _was_ 8)
>
>jim p.
>
However, you do recall the time since and the time before that period,
do you not? Of course, therefore you have a continuity of memory which
leads you to believe that you are the same person as before then,
therefore, congrats, you're sentient. I was asleep and missed some
favorite TV today too, but I was still sentient before and remembered
that afterwards.

                                         R. Steve Walz
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: russell@coco.cchs.su.oz.au
Subject: Makeup and other things.
Organization: Cumberland College of Health Sciences
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 08:28:29 GMT

There has been a long argument going on about makeup, and other things that
improve your looks.
    My views are that the most important thing  is what each person has under
the shirt, in other words heart, personality, attitude etc etc.
    I have dated some pretty girls that now I would never look at again due to
the fact that they are just totally unsuitable for me. They share nothing in 
common with me, and only care about themselves. Before you girls get stuck into
me I will admit that there a plenty of men like that also.
     Like most people when you are relatively young you get sucked in by looks
and appearences, when you should be looking for three or four things that make
you compatable to that girl. If you get two or three of those things you are 
looking for, then you have a possible basis for a relationship. Any less than 
that, and it is not very likely.
    Whether or not a girl wears makeup is her choice, and now one can deny her
that right. However where I draw the line is whether it improves her looks.
Some girls it actually makes them look worse. I personally prefer a girl to 
apply it sensibly, and not cake it on so hard you have to use a knife to get it
off. Some girls just don't have any idea.
    From that you can glean that to me heavy makeup is a turn off. However by
far a bigger turn off is smoking, but I suppose that is entirely another 
argument. 
   The other day I was sitting at a football game, and an attractive girl
sitting right in front of me, was taking great pains to apply plenty of makeup.
After taking about ten minutes to do this, she reached into her bag and started
chewing on some gum, and then lit up a cigarette. I felt like vomiting.
What a waste.

Glenn Russell
Cumberland College of Health Sciences
The University of Sydney
N.S.W.
Australia