HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Japanese Women's Lib
Date: 7 Apr 92 17:10:13 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

>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?
>> 
   And how do American males feel about hell freezing over? That will
   probably happen first. I spent two weeks working in Japan last
   summer. It brought back memories of my childhood in the 1950s:
   traditional gender roles are practically *never* crossed. Most
   women are not particularly serious about any career, and as soon
   as a woman marries and becomes a mother, she leaves the workforce
   until her children are grown. And that is in spite of a *much*
   higher cost of living there than here. Of course, taxes are much
   lower there; Japanese engineers are paying an income
   tax rate of only 3%!!!!!!!

   The amazing thing (to me, at least) is how incredibly *happy* so 
   many women seem there, especially the younger ones. (Maybe they're
   happy because they know it's the MEN who will end up having to
   work so devilishly hard!) I have *never* seen anyplace where the
   women laugh and enjoy themselves with such abandon. I don't THINK
   you can fake that, it seems too real, too spontaneous and widespread.
   

In article <1992Apr6.111001.1@mdcbbs.com> rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:
>  Simply WONDERFUL (the resultant confusion will wreak their economic
>advantage)!
>
   Don't get your hopes up too high!

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

     "In the 1970's the world will undergo famines - hundreds of millions
     of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs 
     embarked upon now ... in 1985, when it is calculated [under the most
     optimistic scenario] that the major die-back will be over, ..."
       
                       Dr. Paul Ehrlich, "The Population Bomb," 1968
From: cnh5730@maraba.tamu.edu (Charles Herrick)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: soc.feminism (was: What I Did at the Rally (Washington, 4/5)
Date: 10 Apr 92 19:58:15 GMT

Michael P. Deignan writes

> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes: 
> >If you can't get soc.feminism, your site
> >is being oppressed.

> Or the owner of the system doesn't want to pay for it, in which case
> the readers are free to subscribe to any number of other pay services
> which will happily provide it for a fee.



why would you want to pay for trash?


Xref: sparky soc.men:8582 soc.women:9110
From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: PMS
Date: 17 Apr 92 18:28:46 GMT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

Premenstrual Syndrom (PMS) is probably caused by the woman's need 
for nutrition rich in protien and iron as a result of the loss of
these nutrients during menstruation.  One function of is to torment
men who aren't out hunting for meat during the full moon.  Another
function is to dispose women toward hunting themselves during the
full moon.
 
I suspect many of the full moon rituals we associate with women, blood
and sacrifice in western european wicca as well as the rituals of 
Dionysian cults were probably expressions of this ancient instinct.
 
PS:  I came up with this theory after being in a relationship with
a woman who had a history of severe PMS.  I started disappearing
from her life for about a week and then cooking her huge juicy steaks.
It worked.  Later I discovered that the a major treatement for PMS
was the amino acid tryptophan -- found primarily in red meat.

--                    
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: dgross@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu (Dave Gross)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Angela Davis:  What's she up to these days...
Date: 10 Apr 92 17:47:28 GMT
Reply-To: dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Dave Gross)
Organization: Zen Fascists for Jerry Brown


	I'm looking for information about what Angela Davis is
	doing these days.  She's coming to the local university
	to speak in a few days and I want to know what to expect.

-- 
******************* INTERNET: dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU **********************
  WASHINGTON (UPI) -- A Pentagon study of long-distance calls placed by the
  Defense Intelligence Agency shows that the super-secret military spy outfit
  spent $25,000 a month on calls to a New York City "Dial-a-Porn" number.
Xref: sparky soc.men:8120 soc.women:8703 talk.politics.misc:17200 alt.rush-limbaugh:1086 alt.politics.correct:3596
From: abeals@autodesk.com (Andrew Scott Beals, KC6SSS)
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 20:58:51 GMT
Followup-To: soc.men

nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (nathan engle) writes:

>In article <4591@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> jxxl@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil writes:
>>  A Napa author has filed another salvo in the battle between the sexes,

>    This may reveal my ignorance (what, again?), but what is a "Napa
>author"? Is "Napa" an acronym for something? From the context it sounds
>like a radical feminist organization.

An authoress who lives in the city of Napa, California.
An authoress who lives in the Napa Valley [big wine-producing region
in California].
Or an authoress who lives in Napa County, California.
--
Andrew Scott Beals	abeals@autodesk.com, kc6sss@n6eeg.#nocal.ca.usa.na
147.300MHz+, 440.900MHz+ [ctcss 114.8Hz]
Vivu libere a>u mortu!
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: dmcanzi@watserv1.waterloo.edu (David Canzi)
Subject: Re: A neat story, and a question.
Organization: Effete Corps of Impudent Snobs
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 02:32:21 GMT

In article <FXBL_3C@ais.org> chungkuo@ais.org (Shawn FitzGerald) writes:
>Hopefully this will not get me expelled. My supervisors have basically told
>me to 'be carefull.' However, I can't help but be totaly pissed off. Not at
>this woman (whomever she may be), but that SHE'S TECHNICALLY RIGHT. 

Going only by what you've said, I'd say you have every right to be
angry at *both* the complainer and the administration.  You don't tell
us what was being said about masturbation, but a serious discussion of
masturbation (say from moral, political, or religious points of view)
is no more out of place than a discussion of baseball or tax shelters.
This looks like yet another case of loosely defined sexual harassment
policies being used to stomp on freedom of speech.

>I'd like to know if there is some place FTPable that archives sexual
>harrassment policies. I can't believe saying something that "offends"
>somebody in a room, when you've NEVER spoken to them or even know who they
>are can be termed 'sexual harrassment.'\

Personally, I'd be interested in knowing if there is an archive of
sexual harassment accusation horror stories somewhere.  Ie.  Stories of
men being accused of "harassing" women they have never seen or
communicated with, never been in the presence of, never been aware of
the existence of, or of men being accused of "harassment" where there
is no "harassee".  I have heard of examples of all of these, but didn't
have the foresight to collect them.

-- 
David Canzi
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: The Gender Lie
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com
Date: 10 Apr 92 13:29:15 GMT
Organization: M&E (Division of EDS), Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: rivero

In article <1534@tymix.Tymnet.COM>, baba@samadhi.Tymnet.COM (Duane Hentrich) writes:
> From my point of view (son, father, brother, friend, voter, philosopher),
> homosexuality is a non-issue.
> 

  Here, here!


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com Homo Cyberneticus-Computational Man  |
From: cnh5730@maraba.tamu.edu (Charles Herrick)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: VMI -=they're BAAACK=- Remember Mills College!!
Date: 9 Apr 92 23:17:16 GMT

On PBS, they announced recent developments in legal proceedings against  
VMI (Virginia Military Institute) being waged by female-libber special  
interest groups and (get this) the US Justice Department to get the  
all-male institution to allow females.

Geez, the Justice Department? Reagan-Bush? This must be an election year!  
I guess you can't even trust the Republicans to be consistent on the issue  
of not knuckling under to the feminists.

It never ceases to amaze me how these RadFems can crank up their arguments  
to side with trashing a uni-sex school (like VMI and the Citadel) when  
it's all-men and make these same arguments conveniently disappear when  
they want to support all-female places like Mills College in Oakland,  
Califonia, which recently vehemently refused to allow men.

In fact, the arguments the libbers used to justify their position on Mills  
College were virtually identical to those that were offered by the  
supporters of VMI.

By the way, it was pointed out that VMI is a public institution (state  
school). Does anyone doubt that professors at Mills College receive NSF  
funding grants or that at least some of their students receive federal or  
state funding?

Once again we are presented with the fact that if you want to go on down  
to the RadFem Cafe, you have to drive down a one-way street to get there.
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Companies can afford it, right?
Date: 7 Apr 92 19:31:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: unisql.2684
Reply-To: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <1992Apr7.165902.214@news.nd.edu> slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:
>employers-from-hell weren't cold enough to have a policy of 
>dumping women from the payroll who had given birth.  Lord help 

	I like to fire 'em, then hire 'em back, and then fire 'em *again*,
'cause it feels so good.

	Sue, i know you're not listening (anymore?) but try to remember
that all companies are not industrial giants.  We can barely afford a useable
medical plan, never mind extended sick leaves.  *We* have no money for it.

								W.rat
Xref: sparky soc.men:8309 soc.women:8854 talk.abortion:14565
From: williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: pro-choice == pro-(womens' only) choice?
Date: 11 Apr 92 15:27:24 GMT
Reply-To: williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com (Dances with Drums)
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: athena

In article <1992Apr09.212420.29226@sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>Yo, before anybody jumps on their hot button:  I am trying to answer the
>questions raised, here.  I'm not supporting the current implementation,
>and frankly have a lot of problems with it.   
---
	noted.
>
>In article <1992Apr9.192409.4784@watserv1.waterloo.edu> lstewart@watserv1.waterloo.edu (L. Stewart -- IS      Office 1058) writes:
>>Does a man have the right to refuse responsibility for a
>>child when the woman decides to continue the pregnancy and
>>he would rather she didn't?
>
>I don't believe he currently does in any state in the US, although some
>states notion of 'enforcement' is lip service.  The theory is that he
>owes support to the child, not to the mother.  So what she did or didn't
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>agree to is not a part of his responsibility.
---
	Here is the crux of the issue...is a child immediately after 
conception, or not.  If it is, then this impacts the abortion issue.  If
it is *not*.  Then after conception, there is no child for a man to be
reponsible for.  However, assuming that a woman chooses to have the child,
at some point -- months after conception, the decision to whether or not
a child is created, is a woman's choice alone.  So whether or not a man
will have a a responsibility or not is totally something he has no
control over. 

	Unless you believe that life (and a child) begins at conception, the
man can create nothing.  He can provide a woman with a a fertilized
embryo, but what she does with that is (as long as pro-choice is alive) 
entirely up to her.  As such, it should be argued that any responsibilities
at that point should ultimately be upon her unless the man has agreed
before hand.

-wat-
--
***  Dances with Drums  ***
***    DoD #0492   Steed: Kawasaki '80 750LTD                             ***
:: If pro-choice means choice after conception, does this apply to men too? ::
From: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: pro-choice == pro-(womens' only) choice?
Date: 8 Apr 92 03:09:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: sun13.8093
Reply-To: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Organization: Florida State University, but I don't speak for them

In article <1992Apr7.203253.10194@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu> bev@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu (Beverly Huntsberger) writes:
>	I happen to care a great deal about men and women.
>	I have never "argued against men's rights to choose".
>	I argue for women's rights to choose and I have
>	simply never "actively rallied" for men's rights.
>	(That I know of off hand. At least not here.)
>
>	I don't "actively rally" for many causes I believe
>	in. I'm only one person. What I was arguing against
>	was the act of chaining one right to another.
>	I hope men succeed in aquiring certain of their
>	previously denied rights.

Forget active rallying for a moment.

Let's take a hypothetical situation.  There's going to be a Federal referendum
next Tuesday.  You're a registered voter, and you're going to be at the polls.
The vote is on Proposition 37.  Under Proposition 37, an unmarried father would
have exactly seven days after being informed of a pregnancy to determine his 
status in r.e. the child that the fetus would become.  If he did nothing, he
would be considered the father of the child, and everything would be exactly
the same as it was now.  If he presented the mother with certain papers, he 
would relinquish *all* rights and *all* responsibility to the child.  

There are two levers, Yes and No.

Which one do you pull, or do you decline to pull either?

Or, try another situation.  Proposition 37 includes the provision that it
would be void wherever abortion during the first trimester is restricted by
law, or where abortion during the second trimester is restricted by law
beyond a licensed physician's decision.

Which one do you pull?

-EMP
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Smelling The Roses
Date: 8 Apr 92 17:59:37 GMT
Reply-To: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

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. 

	Aha!  Maybe that's the problem.  I know several, at least one of 
whom did it by (guess what?) slaving away at a startup company for 5
or 6 years and then selling is now-valuable stock for some ungodly number
of 0's and retiring to do something he'd always wanted to do.  It *can*
work, you know.

>I addressed the issue of prioritization, work or family first. One cannot
>have both. There is an overlap, in my opinion, in the discussions.

	Yes.  I choose work now, family later.  My wife and I find time
for each other, and our children are still gleams in our eyes.

>all you want. In the end, childbearing costs all of us anyway. By not being 

	I suggest that we opt for a socialized alternative.  I agree that 
society needs to support childrearing.  I do not agree that I personally
need to support the childrearing of three dozen people because of some 
accident of association.

	What about it, Bill?  Would you be in favor of a $100.00 per head
poll tax dedicated to subsidizing women's year-off-to-have-a-baby programs?

							W.rat

ps - If I hired a consultant, and 3 weeks
into the job she told me she'd need a year off
to have a baby, would you expect me to pay her
contract even though she's not doing the work,
or perhaps hold the project up for a year until
she wants to come back?  Why not?
From: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: ten commandments
Date: 9 Apr 92 02:41:12 GMT
Reply-To: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Florida State University, but I don't speak for them

In article <1992Apr8.005756.25247@cs.wright.edu> econrad@valhalla.cs.wright.edu (Eric van Fossen Conrad) writes:
>4. Remember the Susan B. Anthony dollar and keep it holy.

Hey!  There was a day when you could get *five* pinball games on an SBA dollar.
That's significantly better than any of the major religions have been able to
do.

-EMP
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: SNUFF FILMS sighted in TIME MAGAZINE!!! (Dworkin and MacKinnon, too)
Date: 14 Apr 92 20:59:56 GMT
Organization: QQQCLC

In article <STEINAR.92Apr14194103@otello.solan.unit.no> steinar@otello.solan.unit.no (Cindy Kandolf) writes:
>Charles Herrick writes:
>>Note that pornography is being equated with violence and snuff films
>>by the feminazis again.
>
>Note the term "feminazis" being used by someone wishing to discredit 
>anything that _might_ be feminist again.

	Looks to me like "feminazi" is here being used as a synonym for
feminists who imagine their desire to censor sexual material is a part of
their feminism rather than their prudery and desire to run other people's
lives. Since the Nazis were enthusiastic censors, the analogy seems apt.

>There is, i think, an obvious difference between soft-core porn, in which
>all parties involved are (or for the sake of the picture pretending to be)
>enjoying themselves, and hard-core porn, where violence is involved and
>not all involved are (seem to be) enjoying themselves.

	You seem unfamiliar with the terminology. "Hard-core" porn simply
means it's very explicit; it has nothing to do with violence, or with
whether the people portrayed seem to be enjoying themselves. When it's
photographic porn (film or stills), "hard-core" usually means pictures of
actual, as opposed to simulated, sex acts.

>Films in which one person appears to be murdered are pretty clearly in
>the second category.  We're in agreement so far, i hope?

	Hell, no. Half the films Hollywood releases feature people
appearing to be murdered. What has that to do with porn? Oh, wait, I
get it: you can't have sex and murder in the _same film_, right?
Because... uh, maybe someone should review the "because" for me.

>Now, maybe the reason you hear so little about soft-core porn is that
>most people don't feel it does any harm, and so ignore it.

	The feminazis don't. Playboy, in fact, is a favorite target of
theirs, because it's widely distributed and well-known.

>I hope this isn't too far-fetched for you.

	Can't speak for Chuck, but it's too far-fetched for me. Most
feminist noise about porn involves the same bait-and-switch: when asked to
explain what's _wrong_ with porn they describe imaginary snuff films; when
they have a plan to deal with porn, it tries to criminalize anything with
a bare boob. I guess intellectual honesty must be some ploy by the
patriarchy :-).

-  nothing fails like success  -          Kenn Barry
----------------------------------------------------------------
ELECTRIC AVENUE:                          barry@netcom.com
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
From: bev@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu (Beverly Huntsberger)
Subject: Re: pro-choice == pro-(womens' only) choice?
Organization: Univ. of South Carolina, Columbia
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 19:47:35 GMT

In <1992Apr10.130812.1@mdcbbs.com> rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:


>  You are independant and childless. Therefore, you may have some trouble
>identifying with a woman who is unexpectedly pregnant, and how she
>may view her links to the father's wallet.

	OK, Mike, let's start over. Let's just say we're 
	both impassioned and we both have good reasons.

	I have absolutely NO "trouble identifying with a woman
	who is unexpectedly pregnant, and how she may view her
	links to the father's wallet".

	You MAY have made a false assumption, there.

	But, _I_ most certainly did and now that I realize it,
	I admit it and I apologize for slashing out, when
	I asked the following hostile question:

>> 	ps: Are you more angry at your ex-wife or your child ?

	and you replied:

>	My ex. I have to actually meet someone to be angry at
>	them.

	Then I realized I was assuming stuff and I AM SORRY.

	I'm convinced yet again, that if we all valued good
	communication more, we'd go much further in solving
	our societal problems. (I guess that's really cliche')

	Anyway, I'm going home for a "four-day".
	Have a good one, all.

	Bev
-- 
--
Bev Huntsberger       bev@grover.csd.scarolina.edu
University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC   29208
--
From: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: There's MEN, MYN, and now MEHN!
Date: 16 Apr 92 19:57:40 GMT
Reply-To: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Dept., Madison, WI

In <1992Apr15.005916.1@vm2.cis.pitt.edu> tjw@vm2.cis.pitt.edu writes:
>But while I was looking through this feminist record catalogue, I came upon
>a listing of "mehn's music".  Finally I found out what "mehn" are.
>They are "men" who are "feminist oriented" and have "learned how they
>have oppressed womyn".

That's pretty funny.  Who comes up with this stuff, anyway?

-- 
Michael Rawdon
rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Department, Madison, WI

"What to do I find it hard to know; the road I walk is not the one I chose."
						- Yes, "Lift Me Up"
From: rdh@Veritas.COM (Robert Hartman)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Dworkin and MacKinnon Rule!
Date: 16 Apr 92 05:15:49 GMT
Organization: VERITAS Software

In article <8gzjj8n.sheaffer@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>In article <1992Apr15.194042.2290@watserv1.waterloo.edu> lstewart@watserv1.waterloo.edu (L. Stewart -- IS      Office 1058) writes:
>>
>>Dworkin and her ilk have neither the charisma nor the popular
>>support to impliment their dysfunctions on society. Hitler was
>>enormously popular and spoke to an entire nation in a time of
>>crisis. MacKinnon and the censor-gang speak to a fraction of the 
>>population and haven't managed too much popularity. Let us hope     
>>that they haven't managed the putsch that launches a thousand
>>repressive laws, and "actions". 
>
>I wish this were true! MacKinnon is the one who INVENTED the very
>"crime" of "sexual harassment" (see a fascinating article on this
>in the January issue of Reason magazine). She has managed to
>force her personal agenda into law throughout North America without winning a
>single election. And you say that RadFems like Dworkin and
>MacKinnon have no power!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>-- 
>  
>        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com

Well, I don't think that she invented anything.  She may well have
named it it for the crime it is.  Now that it's been named, I think
that it's pretty clear what it means.  I think it's also pretty clear
that condoning it doesn't make this a better or a freer or a more
powerful society.  Quite the contrary.  And so, and no doubt despite
their feelings about _her,_ people have recognized the truth in it.
MacKinnon wasn't able to push her anti-porn agenda.  One can argue
the case that porn isn't a crime.  One would be hard pressed to argue
the case that sexual intimidation or blackmail is a form of protected
speech.

So, is she really all that powerful and threatening?  Or did she
just happen to get one right?  (And if she got one right, doesn't
it behoove us to grant her that?)

-r