HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dave@silver.sni.ca (Dave Till)
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Organization: Siemens Nixdorf, Sietec Open Systems, Toronto, Canada
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 19:49:06 GMT

In article <1992Aug11.192947.16193@sni.ca>, I wrote:
>>As a thought exercise, I changed "support a child" to "support a victim
>>of an auto accident", and "create a child" to "drive a car", etc.
>>Using this approach, I modified Ms. Watters' above paragraphs, and got the
>>following:
>>
>>"There have been a number of people who are clearly hurting from having
>>to pay accident benefits.  My reaction was not very sympathetic:  if you
>>don't want to support an accident victim, don't drive a car.
>>
>>I don't know whether my analogy is accurate or not [...]

In article <1992Aug14.064108.7723@leland.Stanford.EDU>,
Janet M. Lafler responded:
>I don't think that the analogy is accurate, mainly because getting pregnant 
>is something that people sometimes want to do, whereas having an accident 
>is almost never something anybody wants to do.  Biologically speaking, sex 
>is for procreation, while having accidents is not the original raison d'etre 
>for driving a car.

True, getting pregnant is something that people sometimes want to do;
however, many people engage in the sex act for the purpose of pleasure,
and do not intend, or want, to get pregnant.  It is these people,
and the morality of their actions, that my analogy referred to.

>I do know a few men (either via my own knowledge or according to their girl-
>friends/wives) who are very concerned about using contraception, want to be 
>actively involved in using it, and are willing to share the expense.  However, 
>judging by the men I've been with, and by what I've heard from female friends, 
>a lot of men are perfectly willing to leave contraception up to women.  The
>only women I know of who are willing to do the reverse are the few I know who
>have persuaded their husbands to have vasectomies, but since that's a form
>of contraception that doesn't need constant vigilance (once it's done, it's
>done), it's a little different.  I know that there are women out there who
>believe men when they say, "Oh, I'll pull out in time," but my suspicion is
>that they're rarer than men who rely on women when they say, "Don't worry,
>I'm on the Pill."
>
>I'm curious about what the men who post here think of this issue, and, more
>importantly, what they do about it.  Note, I'm not talking about using con-
>traception as something you do to protect your partner, but as something you
>do to protect yourself.

Since you've started this new thread as a response to my post:
I couldn't conceive [pun intended] of having sex without using a condom
unless I was wishing to father a child.  In this age of AIDS and other STDs,
there's no other responsible way to behave.
-- 
--Dave Till, SNI, Sietec Open Systems Division (dave@snitor.uucp or "Hey, you")
"My Canada Includes The World Series" -- banner seen at SkyDome
Blue Jays all the way in '92!   (Allons-y Expos!)
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Yet another _Ad Hominem_ post (was: Biological Sex Difference
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 00:04:37 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.150117.140513@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> jpl3@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (Joe Lucia) writes:
)
)Robert Sheaffer writes
)>
)>Notice how Brian the Charitable uses the above to "prove" that I am guilty
)>of either willful misrepresentation, provincialism, or gross stupidity.
)>As I said before, SOME people can stick to the facts when arguing
)>highly-controversial issues, but Brian Siano is NOT one of them. When
)>his blood pressure rises, he starts slinging layer after layer of mud
)>at the PERSONAL CHARACTER of his opponent.
)>
)>If he had the facts on his side, he wouldn't need to stoop so low. So
)>instead, he tries to persuade you that only a dirty little @#$% would
)>argue thusly, hoping to divert attention away from a reasoned examination
)>of the issue.
)>
)>
)     Note, in the above, how Sheaffer claims that Brian Siano has mounted an
)     _ad hominem_ attack, yet Sheaffer's response is all spleen and
)     derogation.

Didn't seem that bad to me.  As a matter of fact, though I agree with
Brian's basic position more, I think Sheaffer's comments about the name
calling are right on.  Though I suppose he could have avoided remarks about
'stooping so low'.

However, a little bit of name calling and protests against same are just 
another little bit of net.fun.  Stay tuned - next will come remarks about
getting this thread *out of soc.women*.  (With some justification, naturally,
I mean does it really have anything to do with women or women's issues
anymore?  But on the other hand, this response doesn't either.)  Anway, stay
tuned for another episode in the exciting net.battle - unless you've already
wised up and put this thread in your killfile - (in which case you won't know
what you're missing :-().
From: deannab@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Deanna Bergstrom)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 16:35:38 GMT
Subject: Re: AIDS in Africa (was re: Power, Control, & Victimology)
Organization: HP Santa Rosa Site (NMD MTA MWTD)
Newsgroups: soc.women

 zeleny@husc8.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes: 
>In article <1992Aug12.202147.9505@fig.citib.com
> glp@fig.citib.com (Greg Parkinson) asks 
>the most hackneyed question about AIDS:

>>Why is it wiping out straight people in central Africa?  

>If you wish to ask that, you should also consider the complementary
>question: why is it not wiping out straight people anywhere else in
>the world?

>Concerning Africa, the situation obtains because of lousy hygiene and
>atrocious health care standards.  Look into the incidence of syphilis
>infections in the same population sample, then think about those open
>sores.  Not a pretty picture.



>cordially,
>mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
>"Un de mes plus grands plaisirs est de jurer Dieu quand je bande."
----------

The other reason why AIDS spreads so easily in Africa, especially among
women, is because of the widespread practice of female "circumcision",
which mutilates the female genitals and can result in repeatedly opening
wounds every time the woman has sex.  These open wounds provide a perfect
transmission route for HIV.   

For a more detailed view of this practice, read Alice Walker's newest
book (The title of it is on the tip of my tongue but I can't recall it
just now.)  It's not pretty.

Deanna

deannab@sr.hp.com
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: 6069870@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Hating Men with Full Force
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 19:54:31 GMT

dearest joel,

i think you'd better check out the word "mysogyny" a bit closer
as it's not found in: webster's ii  new riverside university
dictionary nor is it found in the: seiko insterments  word power professional.
but at least you gave it the ol collage try,,,boy.




------------------------- Original Article -------------------------
From: levin@bbn.com (Joel B Levin)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Hating Men with Full Force
Date: 19 Aug 92 17:55:01 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com

6069870@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:

|why do women complain about the way they are treated by men when the
|only persons to blame are themselves!

  and

|    (*note*  women out number men in population, 5 to 1)

You've obviously got worse problems than just your mysogyny.

Newsgroups: soc.women
From: holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Subject: Re: Hating Men with Full Force
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 22:59:26 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnalno.fnal.gov
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <92232.30094.6069870@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM>, 
6069870@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM whines:

> why do women complain about the way they are treated by men when the
> only persons to blame are themselves!
> 1.  women kept on & on about smoking, the right! to smoke.
>     now they die of cancer about 2 to 1.

huh?

> 2.  women kept on & on about the right to vote!
>     they have yet... to vote themselves in a woman president.
>     (*note*  women out number men in population, 5 to 1)
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Only in your wettest dreams, flamebait.  It's far closer to 51%/49%.

-- 
Daniel B. Holzman                    | Eight Words the Witch's Rede Fufill:
HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET                  | An It Harm None, Do What You Will
HOLZMAN@FNALC.FNAL.GOV.INTERNET      |
                                     | All Acts of Love and Pleasure are
Love doesn't subtract,               | Her Rituals
   it multiplies    - Heinlein       |
                                     | Speak the Word.
Disclaimer:  Fermilab's far too large to have an opinion, let alone mine.
From: mgflax@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Marshall G. Flax)
Subject: Re: Feminism & "Pornography" (ARTICLE)
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 02:54:09 GMT

In article <1992Aug10.152307.23521@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James c Copeland) writes:
>My solution: NUKE the Church!

No, TAX the Church!

marshall
-- 
---
------- (c) 1992, Marshall Gene Flax <mgflax@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> -------
----------- 5 Joyce Lane, Woodbury, NY 11797, 516-364-9331,9379  ----------
- c/o Jack Gelfand,Psychology Dept,Princeton U.,NJ 08544,609-258-6739 (w) -
Xref: sparky soc.women:15418 soc.men:15148 sci.bio:2958 sci.skeptic:14562
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,sci.bio,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Biological Sex Differences?
Date: 18 Aug 92 20:57:31 GMT
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

In article <v03mgxb.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <1992Aug11.225224.13677@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
> 
>>	What feminists want is a fair chance to achieve, although some
>>of their proposed methods might be seen as reverse discrimination.
>
>This is often claimed, but the laws and guidelines drafted by certain
>feminist lawyers (Andrea Dworkin and someone else) are even more sexist
>than the problems they propose to deal with. They have literally defined
>sexism as something men do, and their laws are clearly anti-male. In fact,
>some were struck down as unconstitutional, but the state in which this
>occurred escapes me. The laws that were drafted dealt with sexual harrasment,
>which has been more or less defined as anything which bothers any woman.
	I think it's a little unfair to take an extremist like Dworkin as
typical of the feminist movement as a whole.  I think you'll find fringe
goofballls in this group as you will in any other group.  Would you have us
believe that all black civil-rights leaders agree with the Rev. Al Sharpton?
Or that David Duke speaks for all political conservatives?  I'm not that
familiar with the men's rights movement but I'd be willing to bet they have
their wackos as well.
>
>My point is that the feminists who are doing the most are (IMHO) anti-male,
>not pro-female. I am not making a theoretical argument, but rather mentioning
>what I have observed. If your observations are different, fine. They do not 
>invalidate mine.
>
	We can all IMHO ourselves to death here.  Do you actually have any
empirical evidence that most women who identify themselves as "feminist"
actually agree with extremists like Dworkin?  Most of the ones I know
personally don't, but that hardly counts as objective evidence, of course.
[...]
>
>Rich
>
>payner@netcom.com
>

Chuck
No .sig, no frills, no foolin'


--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: lioness method
Keywords: stop rapes
Date: 12 Aug 92 23:54:27 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Aug10.165152.18662@news.columbia.edu>, dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
> In article <1992Aug7.222313.19298@mdd.comm.mot.com> booth@mdd.comm.mot.com (Greg Booth) writes:
> >[about rape] When it ends, you will be dead; or alive, but physically
> >and emotionally shattered, probably permanently.
> 
>     I'm not entirely sure this is what we want to say to young women
> who may one day be unfourtunate enough to be the victim of a violent
> crime.
>     I would like to think that a rape victim could recover and live a
> happy and normal life after the attack. This sounds to me more like
> advocation of suicide.
> 
> DanZ

Hmmm.  Women I know who have been raped weren't PERMANENTLY damaged.
Some recovered in oh, only 5-10 years.  One woman I know got over
the nightmares after about five years; after about three years,
she no longer had problems relating sexually to her husband
(who was also attacked and badly beaten by the same savage monsters
that raped her).  We certainly wouldn't want women to think that
being raped is going to interfere with the rest of their lives,
would we?

The article Mr. Booth posted is advocacy of that most Politically
Incorrect of ideas: that women have a RIGHT to defend themselves
from rapists and other savage monsters, by any means necessary.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
When the government wins the War on Drugs, they are welcome to try their
gun control snake oil.
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel)
Subject: Re: What bugs you?
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 20:21:53 GMT

dpaxton@ut-emx.uucp (Debi Paxton) writes:

>In article <1992Aug13.191843.27748@javelin.sim.es.com> biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel) writes:
>>Everyone has numerous legitimate complaints, some small, some big.
>>I'd like to know what single aspect of American society bugs women
>>the most.

>OK, I'll bite.

>For me, it is the NIMBY factor -- Not In My Back Yard.
>Sure, we need jails.  But not in our community, and don't raise taxes.
>Sure, we need a landfill, an airport, a community home for foster
>children, the mentally ill, recovering addicts.  But stick it over
>there--on the other side of town--and don't make us pay for it.

Yep, bugs me too. Everyone speaks grandiloquently of sacrifice, effort,
tolerance, but exhibits very little of these virtues.

>While so many of us scream about how other people avoid their
>responsibilities, abuse welfare and other government programs,
>and live off the backs of "us hardworking taxpayers," I don't
>think we generally stop to think about the manner in which, in
>our interrelated society, we all essentially compete to get
>ours before the other guy gets there first.  Instead, we try
>to grab for what we can get and not think too much about who
>gets pushed out of the way.  Often we agree in principle that
>"something needs to be done," but we don't want to live with the
>pain of doing what it takes to solve our problems.

We don't usually change our behavior until we're confronted with direct
unpleasant consequences. Took me a 4 week stretch flat on my back with a
back injury before I began to appreciate the needs of the disabled.
Always figured I was a little stronger, faster, smarter than the others,
so I deserved to be better off. Very common failing, that.

Regards,
       H. Biesel s.N.a.
From: dsm40@mcode.amdahl.com (Diana St.Martin)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Hating Men with Full Force
Date: 19 Aug 92 21:27:18 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation - Macrocode Development

In article <92232.30094.6069870@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM>, 6069870@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
> why do women complain about the way they are treated by men when the
> only persons to blame are themselves!
> 1.  women kept on & on about smoking, the right! to smoke.
>     now they die of cancer about 2 to 1.
> 2.  women kept on & on about the right to vote!
>     they have yet... to vote themselves in a woman president.
>     (*note*  women out number men in population, 5 to 1)
> 3.  women kept complaining about being equal in the work place.
>     they wanted more responsibility, more difficult jobs, have
>     to be even with men in every way!   you say that is your right as
>     a human being...   well i guess maybe it is but..................
>     have you noticed that flower sales have gone way down?
>     or maybe that special someone doesn't open doors for you
>     anymore.  or you find yourself buying dinner for your date~~~~~
>     and the worst part about the whole thing is that men are
>     living longer and womens life expectancy has shortened
>     considerably due to a much higher stress rate, living and
>     dying in what is sais to be a mans world.
> 
>                                      something to consider *

Is there perhaps a point to this?

Diana
Xref: sparky soc.women:15164 talk.rape:2102
Newsgroups: soc.women,talk.rape
From: flaps@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal)
Subject: Re: lioness method
Date: 12 Aug 92 16:15:17 GMT

booth@mdd.comm.mot.com (Greg Booth) writes:
>	If you believe that you cannot injure another human being,
>this training is NOT for you. If you believe that is proper to
>STOP a violent criminal to save yourself and others, it is.

Suppose you believe that it is proper to stop (or STOP) a violent criminal to
save yourself and others, but you believe that you cannot injure another human
being?  Then what?

>When a rape begins, there is no one there but you and the
>rapist. When it ends, there is still no one there but you and the
>rapist.

Not always true.  If there were other people around, this does not mean that
you were not raped.

>When it ends, you will be dead;

there are lots of living rape survivors out there...

>or alive, but physically and emotionally shattered, probably permanently.

Hopefully not permanently.

>RAPISTS DON'T USE CONDOMS.

Not always true.  If he used a condom, this does not mean that you were not
raped.

>You will not learn many tricks here; just enough to defeat almost all
>rapists.

But if you don't manage to defeat a rapist, it is not your fault.

>You MUST make your decision HERE and NOW.

You can do whatever the fuck you want.

>		Frank, the Rapist: 
>	     	 Know your Enemy

All rapists are not like this.  If you don't think your attacker was abused as
a child, that doesn't mean you were not raped.
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Another right to not support?
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 92 00:11:01 GMT

Geez.  All the posts on this make me think life would be much better
if people were sterilized when they hit puberty and then have to pass
tests to become parents.  

I think if I were a woman wanting a child, I'd support myself
financially and have artificial insemination.  If I were a man wanting
a child, I'd contract out a birth mother. 

Of course, I don't want children, have never wanted children, and will
never have children, so I can say unrealistic things like this.  :)
From: stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Another right to not support?
Date: 15 Aug 92 15:26:20 GMT
Followup-To: soc.women
Organization: Murasami Labs

Janice Kendall wrote:
                                                                         
>> 1) A man should be able to figuratively abort the fetus ONLY while the women
>>    can legally, physically do so (so if abortion is contitutionally banned,
>>    the man can no longer figuratively abort).  He must inform the woman in
>>    some sort of legal document that he is doing so during this period so 
>>    she will know that she is going it alone if she continues the pregnancy.  
>>    The man then gives up all parental rights and responsibilities.  He can 
>>    not change his mind later and interfere in the life and choices of the
>>    woman.
                                                                         
Char Aznabul responds:
                                                                         
> >This will require a notification of the man in question. Anyone care to
> >speculate how that will go over with the pro-choice crowd that was irrate
> >over notifying a *husband*? 

> >This is perhaps the most touchy area in this entire debate. A woman can
> >legally deprive a man of his children, and the children of their father,
> >if they decide to go it alone and not tell him.
                                                                         
Janice Kendall wrote:
                                                                         
> You just flipped the situation here.  The issue I am responding to is men
> being forced to pay support for children they claim to not have wanted.
> You are talking about the issue of the man wanting the child.                                                                         
                                                                         
No, you misread (or I mistyped) what I meant. In order for a man to make
the decision, he has to be told, correct? I think the man involved has the
right to know, no matter what the woman decides. If the woman decides to
abort, perhaps it's just as well he doesn't know. But maybe not. That's
one possibility.
                                                                         
What if our straw-woman goes ahead and bears the child, and doesn't notify
the father (or name the father, for that matter) until *after* the fact?
So much for his right to informed consent. Fait accompli, I think is the
term.
                                                                         
K'Char
                                                                         
                                                                         
From: mikep@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Mike Powell)
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 01:10:32 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: REQUEST from GIRLS: List of 20 WORST/UNORIGINAL ways to ask a girl
Organization: HP Santa Rosa Site (NMD MTA MWTD)
Newsgroups: soc.women

/ hpmwmat:soc.women / SALIMM@MAINE.MAINE.EDU writes: 
I think the emphasis on money regarding the previous listing "I love
you, take my wallet" or something to that affect is pathetic, materialist
and bloody immoral.  Treat people like human beings and believe it or
not, they will treat you back, very nicely.  Stop objectifying women,
better still, do not think that they can be bought.
----------

	That's one of the reasons why it's on the 20 WORST list...
	
	Sheesh.

	BTW it also points to the fact that many women have searched
	for a 'mate' using the size of a man's bank account, or earning
	potential as a primary metric.  Talk about objectifying....

	As with most things, it goes both ways.   But some people only
	see the side they want to see.

	-Mike-

Xref: sparky soc.women:15449 soc.men:15180 sci.bio:2973 sci.skeptic:14612
From: bwalsh@math.rutgers.edu (Bertram Walsh)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.activism,alt.sex,alt.sex.bondage
Subject: Re: Feminism & "Pornography" (ARTICLE)
Date: 15 Aug 92 16:07:18 GMT
Followup-To: soc.women
Distribution: na
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

Roger Leroux posts, among other things, about

> ... gender neutral language, a pet peeve of mine about the women's
> movement: French and German, both of which I know, are *not* gender
> neutral, and in fact, everything has gender attached (la lune, der
> Mond, the moon - female, male, and our equivalent of neutral
> respectively). Just because it has "gender" attached does not make
> it sexist.

A recent German post in a similar thread -- in alt.sex I think --
described how our problems in this area with English are as nothing
compared to those with a language that has grammatical gender (which
is sometimes at variance with biological OBSex, e.g. das Weib, das
Maedchen).  And German attacks on sexism are as serious as only some-
thing German can be 8-).

Bertram Walsh  Mathematics Dep't  Rutgers University New Brunswick NJ 08903