HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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 17:25:00 GMT
Organization: The Armory

In article <1992Apr1.165918.2236@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Mar31.161857.12073@deeptht.santa-cruz.ca.us>
>rstevew@deeptht.santa-cruz.ca.us (Richard Steven Walz) writes:
>
>>Exceptions being anencephalic babies born with no cerebrum, literally,
>>no brain, like the one in Florida which died yesterday after Fla. law
>>made the parents wait for it to die instead of harvesting organs.
>>Florida is populated by some really nutty crackers.
>
>No.  The *standard* legal definition of life says that anybody with
>any neural activity in the brain or brain stem is alive.  The law just
>hasn't caught up with anencephalic babies (aren't any other kind of
>anencephalitics; they die young) yet.
>
>Incidentally, imo a being without a brain who's breathing on their own
>is *alive* -- just not a person or a human being.
>
>-- 
>"Prejudice is the child of ignorance."                    - William Hazlitt
>
>Pro-Choice       Anti-Roe                             - E. Elizabeth Bartley

I am puzzled by your sig. having pro-choice anti-Roe. These would seem
to be opposites in common usage. Please explain.

Also the problem I was citing about Florida is that they don't have
such a definition of brain death anyway. That was the reason that they
couldn't terminate. And an EEG doesn't trace brain stem activity,
which was all the child had. Like I said, Florida has some nutty
crackers in it.           - Richard Steven Walz
Xref: sparky soc.women:9105 soc.men:8579 misc.kids:13176 alt.parents-teens:715
From: teresa@ariel.ccit.arizona.edu (Teresa L. Gergen)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,misc.kids,alt.parents-teens
Subject: Survey - are women dependent on men -- Thanks
Date: 17 Apr 92 16:33:55 GMT
Distribution: usa,local

Thanks to all who responded to my survey (26 so far).  I'll still take  
responses through next Mon. or Tues - and thanks in advance for those too.   
I'll post some results when I get them put together.
..teresa
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: carol@ee.uts.edu.au (Carol Gibson)
Subject: abortion is a women's issue
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney, Australia
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 04:21:21 GMT

I know this is going to raise hell - but what the hell..

ABORTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MEN!

I subscribed to this newsgroup because I wanted to discuss opinions
with women - instead I find a bunch of men discussing abortion...

	Carol
From: JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu (Joy Haftel)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Makeup - a male perspective
Date: 7 Apr 92 16:13:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: psuvm.92098.121331JKH107
 <1992Apr6.132012.1@mdcbbs.com> <654@nazgul.UUCP>
Organization: Dewey Decimal

In article <654@nazgul.UUCP>, bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright) says:
>o       (I'm going to get flamed for this!) Short hair historically has been
>        a symbol of free men. Long hair has been a symbol of oppression
>        and slavery. (I am talking about men's hair here.) This goes back
>        to the Greeks. And yes, I'm sure you can name many counterexamples.

I don't about the sign of slavery thing, but when you look at Greek
art (vase paintings especially), you will notice that the young men
wear their hair long and are unshaven, while the older men have shorter
hair and beards.  Depictions of Achilleus show him as a beardless youth
with long hair, while Menelaos etc. have beards.  Often when the young
men are portrayed in a battle, they have long hair tied back in a bun.

My knowledge of the subject comes from the Bible, where Paul talks about
men having short hair and women having long hair.  Somehow (and I am
sure this is cultural) it was a "disgrace" for a woman to have short
hair and for men to have long hair.

Joy Haftel               "Surprised by joy--impatient as the Wind
JKH107@PSUVM              I turned to share the transport--Oh!"
                                  --Wordsworth
From: tparks@world.std.com (terry parks)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Carol Moseley Braun (was Re: Women in Politics)
Date: 16 Apr 92 01:47:19 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

>>Could you, or anyone, tell us why they
>                                    ^
>        referring here to The League of Women Voters
>
>>maintain a gender-alienating name?
>>They could change their name in a day and yet every day the purposely
>>choose to keep their sexist title.
>
>        aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhh  hhhaaaaaaaaa... haaaa, ha, ehe, hee.
>        <shwew!> um.
>
>        Uh, how old are you, anyway?

Another brilliant defense of overt sexism, no doubt.  I'm surprised you
didn`t make a remark about me being on the rag.
Xref: sparky soc.women:8876 rec.arts.books:7859
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: soc.women,rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Instant Yuppies (was: Concordia University openly practices sex discrimination
Date: 10 Apr 92 21:15:53 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Apr2.194431.25553@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
> In article <10305@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >Here are some typical quotes from the 400K+ file I've collected
> >from soc.motss:
> 
> Not one of which proves your assertions about homosexuals generally.
> I'm beginning to think you have a cognitive problem.
> 
> Mike Godwin,     |"Les vrais paradis sont les paradis

My assertion "generally" was that there was widespread support for
child molestation in the gay community.  I suspect it's a loud
minority that has badgered the rest into silence -- but I'm not
at all sure how small the minority is, or even that it's the 
minority.

When you combine the vociferous support in soc.motss with the 
appearance of the North American Man-Boy Love Association in 
gay parades, it certainly does suggest that there's more than 
trivial support for NAMBLA's activities in the gay community,
doesn't it?

-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"The mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a
favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace
of God." -- Thomas Jefferson
From: stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Q the fake
Date: 14 Apr 92 13:27:30 GMT
Distribution: na

Helen Trillian Rose ponders

+ I'm curious to know why so many people believe "Q" is a male. Is it
+ because Q has a similar posting style to many of the male.bozos on
+ soc.women, or just because of gender bias?
+ 
+ Think over carefully before answering....

Posting style, which, unless it's changed, is worse than even the
"male.bozos" (what, got some male dogs posting?). Heavily insulting,
heavily aggressive.

Neither trait is what I would expect of a woman. It could be a woman
posting *in* that style, I suppose. But to maintain the facade for this
long would be some doing.

Unless the female.bozos in soc.women have adopted that style of late...

K'Char - only a special appearance
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: The Media and Images of Women (Was Re: feminists are )
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 21:17:10 GMT


In article <2APR199219152863@oregon.uoregon.edu> cwinkler@oregon.uoregon.edu (Celia Winkler) writes:

)
)1)  The Reflection Hypothesis:
)2)  Role-Learning Theory:
)3)  Organizational Theories of Gender Inequality:
)4)  Capitalism and the Media:

...

)This is not to say that these are the only theories which
)attempt to explain images of women in the media.  These are just
)the ones that Andersen presents, and that are easy for 
)introductory soc of women students to understand.
)
)Now, did any of those make your blood boil?  :-)

No, this all seems fairly reasonable to me.  

It's the 'Male Patriarchy Uses The Media To Opress and Degrade Women'
sort of theory that makes me grit my teeth a bit :-(.

It's probably fairly easy to test (and IMO refute), unless one adds the
caveat that 'Some Women Are Male Oriented And Therfore Not Really Women
For The Purposes Of This Theory' caveat, in which case it becomes untestable
but irrefutable (more or less by definition).  Rather like a religion :-)

#3 reminds me the most of this theory.  I don't have any overwhelming
impression that women-run magazines are much different from men-run
magazines (though I don't have any specific data).  Not sure of how else to
test it, as I mentioned above.

I agree pretty much with your impression of #4 - it's pretty solid as far
as it goes, but it doesn't explain everything.  A good example of this
in an unrelated field is the tendency of many computer magazines not to
publish negative reviews of software.  This is (IMO) directly related to the
desires of the advertiser, who may well withdraw their ads if they are
offended.  A counterexample is that there are a few magazines that do
'get away' with occasional negative reviews - but the prediction doesn't
have to apply to every single case to have a great deal of validity (IMO).

#1 and #2 seem somewhat problematical to me as far as testing them go.
It's logical that cause and effect works both ways - the culture shapes the
media, and the media shapes the culture.  I'm not sure how to separate out
which does which.
From: kurts@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Kurt Strain)
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 15:36:38 GMT
Subject: Re: Sexism?
Organization: Milky Way Galaxy
Newsgroups: soc.women

In soc.women, positron@caen.engin.umich.edu (Jonathan Scott Haas) writes:


>   What is the end analogy to a kiwi supposed to mean?  I think it is a bit
>   demented and very offensive.  What are you some kind of sexist pig?!
>   Get a life pal and leave the kiwi's at the market.
>   ------end quoted text

>   Needless to say, I was shocked and appalled. What do you think? Is
>   my quote sexist? Am I off base, or is the person who sent me this letter?
>   Feedback appreciated.

Typical rad fem crap you found there.  If you post here, be prepared for it.
They have no sense of humor, just a chip on their shoulder. 
Xref: sparky soc.women:8897 talk.abortion:14848 soc.men:8354
From: williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums)
Newsgroups: soc.women,talk.abortion,soc.men
Subject: Re: pro-choice == pro-(womens' only) choice?
Date: 13 Apr 92 06:18:35 GMT
Reply-To: williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com (Dances with Drums)
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: athena

In article <1992Apr9.101629.18624@newstand.syr.edu> mprisco@lynx.cat.syr.edu writes:
>I know the example is extreme, but I'm trying to make a point.
>Culturally and legally (can men get WIC?) women are held 
>responsible for their children more so than men.
---
	Legally speaking, it seems men are held just as responsible.  If
a father had sole custody of a baby, and then left it in the trash,
you can be certain he would get as well or better roasted than any
female.

>  Abortion is
>the only way a woman can walk away from a pregnancy.  
---
	Hmmm. What happened to giving a baby up for adoption?  Somethat, that
until recently was also something the man didn't have a say in (in
an unmarried relationship).

-wat-
--
***  Dances with Drums  ***
***    DoD #0492   Steed: Kawasaki '80 750LTD                             ***
:: If pro-choice means choice after conception, does this apply to men too? ::
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Equal rights under the law (Re: Suppose pornography DOES encourage violence?)
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 02:57:55 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.210930.23832@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
)russ@alliant.com (Russell McFatter) writes:
)
)[...]
)>To clear up any potential confusion, the bill does NOT ban "pornographic
)>materials".  What it DOES do is permit any woman (yes, "woman"-- more
)>discriminatory legislation here) who claims to have been harmed in any
)>way as an indirect result of any kind of pornography to sue the STORE
)>that sells it.

)Well I guess I don't need to worry about such a law in Illinois. Here
)we have equal rights for women and men are part of the state
)consititution. (Sadly and ironically, we are also the home of Phyllis
)Shaffly (sp?) and one of the states that de-ratified the national
)ERA.)

I dunno about that.  We've got a constitutional right against unreasonable
search and seizure - and RICO, and money and vehicles being sized under
it without any due process whatsoever.



Newsgroups: soc.women
From: mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Ed McCreary)
Subject: Re: Florida baby
Organization: Compaq Computer Corp.
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 18:19:55 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.162546.29697@cco.caltech.edu> hough@seismo.gps.caltech.edu (Susan Hough) writes:
>In article <641@nazgul.UUCP> bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright) writes:
>>/Exceptions being anencephalic babies born with no cerebrum, literally,
>>/no brain, like the one in Florida which died yesterday after Fla. law
>>/made the parents wait for it to die instead of harvesting organs.
>>/Florida is populated by some really nutty crackers.
>>
>>For once, the judiciary did the right thing. They applied the law, and under
>>the law the baby clearly was not brain-dead. The law is wrong, however, and
>
>What I wonder in this case is this:  why on earth did the hospital
>hook the baby up to life-support equipment?  My guess is that in many
>if not most of these cases, "heroic" life-sustaining intervention is
>simply not attempted and the babies are allowed to die quickly.  

I'm not familiar with the details, but it's possible that they did not
know the baby was anencephalic until after they had placed it on life
support.  But, I believe this *should* have shown up on the ultrasound,
if one was done prior to birth.

In respone to another posting, I'm not familiar with any cases where
a patient was completely anencephalic and conscious.  There have been
several cases where the individual was microencephalic and led normal
lives though.  There is a difference.  Anencephalic patients have *no*
cerebrum and therefore no higher brain function.  There was a case
in Scotland several years ago involving a teenage girl.  She was
considered to be quite intelligent, even gifted.  It was discovered 
that her brain was hollow, that is the brain appeared to be normal
when viewed externally but that the ventricles were enlarged and filling
all but a centimeter layer of the brain.  As far as I know she's still
alive and leading a perfectly normal life.  But, she did have a portion
of the cerebrum present.  If I remember correctly, most higher brain
functions are thought to occur on the surface on the brain, not the
interior, which is all this girl had.

If the patient is truely anencephalic, there is not a chance, nada, zip,
of him or her *ever* gaining consciousness and leading even a semi normal
life.  


--
McCreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com     Computers are like Old Testament gods;
Me? Speak for Compaq?  Yeah, right.   lots of rules and no mercy.
                                                             Joseph Campbell
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: repnomar@leland.Stanford.EDU (Janet M. Lafler)
Subject: Re: Suppose pornography DOES encourage violence?
Keywords: first amendment, KKK, offensive material
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 01:52:47 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.031047.21228@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> pciszek@isis.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.
>
>The KKK is openly hostile towards all non-caucasians.  I know of no one who
>could say "The KKK does nothing to encourage racial violence" and keep a
>straight face.  And yet, the marches, rallies, and publications of the KKK
>are protected by the first ammendment.  The ACLU is willing to spend
>considerable resources defending the Klan's right to encourage hate.
>
>So why doesn't this same wonderful tolerance extend to pornography?  Is it
>because black men are not considered to be worth as much as white women?

As far as the ACLU is concerned, the "same wonderful tolerance" *does* apply.
They have opposed anti-pornography laws again and again, and they've gotten 
targetted by anti-pornography groups because of the stand they have taken.

/Janet

-- 
send mail to repnomar@leland.stanford.edu
Purdy...lowered his voice.  "Now.  We never had this conversation."   B.J. was 
alarmed to hear it.  Who _had_ had this conversation and what had he been 
doing while they had it?
From: kenneth@ducvax.auburn.edu
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Surgeon General Antonia Novello
Date: 15 Apr 92 10:38:16 GMT

In article <Apr.14.21.43.12.1992.13212@romulus.rutgers.edu>, clong@romulus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long) writes:
> 
> Could anyone provide me with a little more information on Antonia
> Novello, e.g. her qualifications?  From what she's done since she
> assumed the office of Surgeon General she looks like a real idiot.
> Just another Bush puppet?

Well, she's Father Guido Sarducci's cousin, if that helps!

Ken
Newsgroups: tcd.talk,soc.women,soc.men,talk.rape,talk.abortion,rec.arts.sf.misc
From: mrharri@jake.cc.wayne.edu (Marissa Harrison)
Subject: Re: A rather peculiar letter.
Organization: Wayne State University, Detroit
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 11:38:07 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.223308.5691@cbfsb.cb.att.com> mikeh@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (michael p.herlihy) writes:
>In article <1992Apr10.185433.14853@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Apr06.172500.3090@deeptht.santa-cruz.ca.us>
>>rstevew@deeptht.santa-cruz.ca.us (Richard Steven Walz) writes:
>>
>>>I am puzzled by your sig. having pro-choice anti-Roe. These would seem
>>>to be opposites in common usage. Please explain.
>>
>>I'm in favor of a woman having the ability to choose abortion, against
>>the idea that this is mandated by the Constitution.
>>
>
>What is the consensus on the net for a national abortion law?
>
>I am pro-life but think this issue is tearing the country apart.
>I would like to have it settled. I don't think having 50 different
>state laws is right.  It just favors those people who have the 
>money to travel to a state with more liberal laws.
>
>My idea of a compromise:
>
>	(1) Legal abortion to 14 weeks.
>	(2) Legal abortion health of the mother
>	(3) Legal abortion rape/incest
>
>I still believe abortion is wrong but legalizing any action
>does not make it morally right. It leaves the decision to
>the mother.
>
>--
Why can't everyone come to this conclusion?  I'm pro-choice, but I would
have no problem with this compromise!  I'm sure alot of people wouldn't
(there's always a few that will never be satisfied).  This is indeed a
moral issue and I believe that the individual should have the ultimate
say so on what they should do based on their own backround.  This, to
me, is the closest thing to a REAL compromise.  Neither side gets to
take all.

My hats off to you Mike.  Great idea!

Marissa
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: <None>
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com
Date: 8 Apr 92 10:33:21 GMT
 <1992Apr2.180644.1@fnalo.fnal.gov> <1992Apr6.124251.1@mdcbbs.com> <1992Apr7.161026.1@fnalno.fnal.gov>
Organization: M&E (Division of EDS), Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: rivero

In article <1992Apr7.161026.1@fnalno.fnal.gov>, holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov writes:
> In article <1992Apr6.124251.1@mdcbbs.com>, rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:
>> of this is simple. If you take on the mantle of communicator, any failure
>> to communicate is YOURS. You cannot blame your audiance if they don't
>> understand what you are saying, and just dismissing them because they haven't
>> read the correct books and magazines is a cop-out royale!
> 
> Ah, but I am not the only communicator here.  You assumed the mantle of
> communicator in making a critique of feminism.  Your critique is refuted by
> contradictory data, and now you are complaining that it wasn't spoon-fed to
> you, so feminists are to blame for your ignorance of feminism. 

 No, I say that feminists who don't communicate well are resposnible if I
haven't heard their view of femimism. There is a difference. The mass
audience is under no obligation to do their homework for them.



<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com Homo Cyberneticus-Computational Man  |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|    EARLY RESULTS FROM THE NEW YORK PRIMARY!                            |
|    Clinton                                              17%            |
|    Brown                                                22%            |
|    Elvis in the white jumpsuit                          57%            |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: aharvey@fwhnm02.fwrdc.rtsg.mot.com (Anne Harvey)
Subject: Norplant
Organization: Cellular Infrastructure Group, Motorola, Inc.
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1992 16:32:54 GMT

 
I am considering using the Norplant implant system of contraception.
I've discussed this with my gynocologist and was given a brochure to
read.  There does not seem to be any contraindications (I do not want
to get pregnant for at least the next several years.  I have no
personal or family history of liver disease, blood clots, breast
disease, heart disease, high blood pressure, elevated cholesterol,
etc.)  However, I am breastfeeding my 5 mo. old daughter and would like
to continue.  My dr.  tells me Norplant will not cause me or the baby
any problems, but I am slightly skeptical.

I'd like to hear any personal experience with this type of
contraception, especially those who have breastfed while using
Norplant.

thanks, 
anne
-- 
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|             Time flies like an arrow.  Fruit flies like a bannana.          |
|                                                                             |
|                                  Anne Harvey                                |
|                 Internet:aharvey@hpmail1.fwrdc.rtsg.mot.com                 |
|              The opinions contained herein are strictly my own.             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Xref: sparky alt.sex:13773 soc.women:8739
From: pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich)
Subject: Re: abortion is a women's issue
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 19:22:19 GMT
Organization: (Ha!)

In article <1992Apr16.145627.6646@ccu.umanitoba.ca> kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts) writes:
>In <carol.703398081@ee.uts.EDU.AU> carol@ee.uts.edu.au (Carol Gibson) writes:
>>I subscribed to this newsgroup because I wanted to discuss opinions
>>with women - instead I find a bunch of men discussing abortion...
>On the other hand, I subscribe to this newsgroup to talk about women.  Women
>are free, and encouraged, to join in this discussion.  If you want to talk to
>women about women subscribe to the FEMAIL mailing list.

Keeripes what a bozo thing to say. First of all, the femail mailing list
is open to both sexes; the moderation merely filters most of the clueless
jerks. Second, *chortle* *gasp* *guffaw* you joined this group, as a man,
to talk about (not, apparently, with) women, and, out of the goodness of
your heart you are permitting, na, inviting women to join in your discussion.
Right. Maybe what some women intend when they say "all men are jerks" is
simply that even if most men aren't jerks, there are some outliers who
kick the arithmetic mean up so far that you can't tell the difference.

paul

Newsgroups: soc.women,talk.abortion,soc.men