HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: lotteries! (was: Men Are Not Cost Effective)
Date: 11 Apr 92 00:34:12 GMT
Distribution: na

Jeff Breitner writes
+ jxxl@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil writes:
+ 
+ > 
+ >   Excerpted from Napa Writer Blames Maleness for Crime
+ >   by Ron Sonenshine
+ >   San Francisco Chronicle (April 6, 1992)
+ >   --
+ >   A Napa author has filed another salvo in the battle between the sexes,
+ >   arguing in a new book that the nation's annual $300 billion crime tab
+ >   is exclusively a masculine problem for which men alone should pay.
+ > 
+ >   perhaps through a special tax.

+ That's ok.  I'll get her with my proposed tax on dumb people.  After
+ all, they leach off the productivity of others and slow the nation
+ down because other people must pick up after them.

Ah, so you want to start a lottery!

K'Char
From: cnh5730@maraba.tamu.edu (Charles Herrick)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: A neat story, and a question.
Date: 14 Apr 92 18:00:35 GMT

In article <FXBL_3C@ais.org> chungkuo@ais.org (Shawn FitzGerald)  
writes:
[...]
$ A user
$ overheard some thing I said, most of which she found offensive. 
[...]
$I am now in Deep Doo
[...]
$ I have been informed that making comments that "are sexual, or
$ could be construed as sexist" are grounds for a sexual harrassment  
charge. I
$ do not know who my accuser is, nor have I ever spoken to her.
[...]
$ 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.'

In many places, you can be charged with sexual harrassment if you put  
a calender on the wall of your personal office that has a picture of  
a female in a bikini leaning against a '57 Chevy.

If you're mad about this kind of politically-correct bullying, start  
writing your elected (and wanna-be's) representatives demanding that  
they stop knuckling under to the feminazis who patrol the halls of  
government looking for people to strong-arm.

Fight misandry effectively. Fight it in the halls of government. Only  
when men have their own lobbying groups will this start to turn  
around.
From: schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: SNUFF FILMS sighted in TIME MAGAZINE!!! (Dworkin and MacKinnon, too)
Date: 15 Apr 92 18:32:21 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada

In article <1596@devnull.mpd.tandem.com> dwelch@devnull.mpd.tandem.com
(Dan Welch) writes:
>
>You're right, Cindy, the Nazis were much worse.  They wanted to destroy
>the Jews, not the men.  And they advocated mass murder  group they ...
>oops, wait, forget that one.  ...And they tried to forcefully surpress
>any opposing viewp... no, forget that one, too.

More news from Canada.  A lower court decision recently legitimized
censorship of men solely on the basis of gender.  Although the
specific case involved a man who wrote a critical letter to the
editor of a feminist magazine with a written policy of ignoring
male contributions if it desires, the decision presumably applies
to all media.

A lawyer summarized it thus: "If you're furthering the interests
of a disadvantaged group, it's not discrimination, it's not censorship,
it's affirmative action."  The logic here seems to be that if you
turn down the volume on men's voices, that's a good thing because it
levels the playing field for women's voices.

Now affirmative action of course has always applied to jobs and
grants, but never until now to _speech_.  And the sad part of it
is that nobody seems to care.  The stock media commentator opinion
is that it's a just and right decision, a step forward for women.
A step forward for Canada.

Excuse me while I find a bucket....

-S. Schultz
Xref: sparky soc.men:8374 soc.women:8910 talk.abortion:14944
From: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: pro-choice == pro-(womens' only) choice?
Date: 13 Apr 92 21:09:06 GMT
Reply-To: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Dept., Madison, WI

In <1992Apr11.182317.5404@vax.oxford.ac.uk> annan@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
>Lots of stuff has been written here about whether men should have any rights
>over the unborn child to go with their unavoidable legal responsibilities,
>basically noting that they don't. Well, a story that might interest you....

>In Oxford, a few years ago, a female student got pregnant. She wanted an
>abortion, her boyfriend did not because of his christian beliefs (mind you, if
>he was really a christian, what was he doing sleeping with her anyway? But
>that's not the point). He went to court to try to prevent the abortion. He
>lost. Fair?

IMO, definitely fair.  If he wants a kid, he should find a woman who WANTS
to go through with a pregnancy.

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

"Of course this is true for more general values of 5."
From: ken@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Ken Johnson)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Maternity Leave and Child Benefits
Date: 7 Apr 92 13:03:35 GMT
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: Bugs-R-Us


In article <1992Apr6.193638.8243@news.lrz-muenchen.de>
TRINGHAM@usmv01.usm.uni-muenchen.de (Tringham, Neal) writes:

>as far as I know no British government has EVER cut the (real) amount
>of money devoted to the NHS. It usually goes up, under both Tory and Labour
>governments. 


Harold Wilson (Labour) cut the hospital construction budget in 1968 [??]
See `Britain in balance' by W A P Manser (Penguin) for more about this. 



-- 
                          ////  Ken Johnson, A I Applications Institute
We won't be meeting again ////       80 South Bridge, EDINBURGH EH1 1HN
On the slow train,        ////                 E-mail ken@aiai.ed.ac.uk
On the slow train.        ////     phone 031-650 2756  fax 031-650 6513
Xref: sparky soc.men:8466 soc.culture.canada:3420
From: stougheric@bvc.edu (The Wease)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Getting screwed, wanna talk?!
Date: 13 Apr 92 23:12:59 CDT
Organization: Buena Vista College, Storm Lake, IA

	Hey...I'm huh-way new to this 'soc.men' thing, here, but
I'd like to say 'hi' anyway, so...

	I was wondering, if I brought up a situation where I got
totally 'f*cked' and would like to hear some advice on it, would
anyone respond?  This seems like an interesting way of talking
about your problems...sorry if I'm getting the purpose if this
netword wrong...

	Well...gotta go...papers won't wait forever...


	Eric 


--------------------------------------------------------------
 +                                                          +
 +  Now, here's what's known as a radio cut,                +
 +     when you can't say sh*t and you can't say f*ck...    +
 +	                                                    +
 +			"Freedom of Speech"                 +
 +                        	-Above the Law              +
 +                                                          +
--------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
From: tron@tc.fluke.COM (Peter Barbee)
Subject: Re: Maternity Leave and Child Benefits
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 14:48:50 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.201347.23007@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> ash@sumex-aim.stanford.edu (David Ash) writes:
>I think a strong case can be made that taxes to support education should
>be paid only by those who have kids.  As far as the library is concerned,
>in theory it's there for everyone, not just children.

This statement aligns Mr. Ash with medival social consciousness.

In general Mr. Ash your arguments lack the awareness of how humans
act and react within systems which are out of each individual's direct
control.  You can choose to blame those persons born with fewer
advantages than you but does it really, in the end, feel good to
kick dogs?

Peter B
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: cwinkler@oregon.uoregon.edu (Celia Winkler)
Subject: Re: Feminists Growing Old Alone
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Oregon
Date: 16 Apr 1992 14:06 PDT  

In article <VVZBJB1w164w@netlink.cts.com>, jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes...
> ... 
>Sexual and economic exploitation of the 50's boomers by males born
>before 1950 is pretty much responsible for feminism and for the 
>explosion of homosexual behavior in younger males.  Thus
>"conservatives" are just as guilty as "liberals" for our current
>disaster.  It's just that "conservatives" prevented 50's boomers
>from nesting by hoarding all the nesting material and the "liberals"
>prevented those boomers from nesting by sexually "liberating" the
>50's boomer females -- liberating them to be whores to corporate
>and government bureaucrats instead of wives and mothers.
..
>There are few things sadder than a lonely old whore stewing in 
>her hatred of nature...

Um...  Could you be more clear regarding to whom you are referring 
as a "whore"?  And explain why you are using that particular term?  

cw
From: stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: What Does WoMan Want?
Date: 12 Apr 92 22:27:34 GMT
Distribution: na

Jim Bowery writes
+ What the Modern Woman wants (in order of importance):

  
+ What the Modern Man wants (in order of importance):

[mucho deletia]

Can the stereotypes, will ya?

K'Char - who'd very much like a committed relationship, thank you.
Xref: sparky soc.men:8325 talk.rape:872 talk.abortion:14614 soc.women:8861
From: wt0b+@andrew.cmu.edu (William Henry Timmins)
Newsgroups: soc.men,talk.rape,talk.abortion,soc.women
Subject: Re: A rather peculiar letter.
Date: 11 Apr 92 21:27:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.Qdtpb4u00aw682YFo6
	<1992Apr11.113807.24202@cs.wayne.edu>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Please, people, stop inculding netnews.rec.arts.sf.misc in this thread!

If readers of a newsgroup on science fiction want to talk about
abortion, they'll read it in one of the other groups!!

-Me
From: schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: SNUFF FILMS sighted in TIME MAGAZINE!!! (Dworkin and MacKinnon, too)
Date: 15 Apr 92 18:15:06 GMT
Organization: Unty of British Columbiacouver, B.C., Canada

In article <1596@l.tandem.com> dwelch@devnull.mpd.tandem.com
(Dan Welch) writes:
>
>You're right, Cin the Nazis were much worse.  Tanted to destroy
>the Jews, not the meadvocated mass murde the group they ...
>oops, wait, forget that one.  ...And they tried to forcefully surpress
>any opposing viewp... no, forget that one, too.

More news from Canada.  A lower court decision recently legitimized
censorship of men solely on the basis of gender.  Although the
specific case involved a man who wrote a critical letter to the
editor of a feminist magazine with a written policy of ignoring
male contributions if it desires, the decision presumably applies
to all media.

A lawyer summarized it thus: "If you're furthering the interests
of a disadvantaged group, it's not discrimination, it's not censorship,
it's affirmative action."  The logic here seems to be that if you
turn down the volume on men's voices, that's a good thing because it
levels the playing field for women's voices.

Now affirmative action of course has always applied to jobs and
grants, but never until now to _speech_.  And the sad part of it
is that nobody seems to care.  The stock media commentator opinion
is that it's a just and right decision, a step forward for women.
A step forward for Canada.

Excuse me while I find a bucket....

-S. Schultz
Xref: sparky soc.men:8562 soc.women:9080 talk.abortion:15647
From: stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: What I Did at the Rally (Washington, 4/5)
Date: 11 Apr 92 00:51:20 GMT
Distribution: na

Steve Cumming writes
+ In article <1992Apr10.025227.4687@anomaly.sbs.com> mpd@anomaly.sbs.com  
(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, [...]
+ >--  Michael P. Deignan                      / 
+ 
+ Yes, Michael, that's possible. I can't help but wonder, though,
+ why you'd trouble to bring it up. Can you just not stand any degree
+ of logical imperfection in Gordon's postings?
+ 
+ Or is the principle of private ownership something you rise, like a
+ fish, to defend, even when it's not in jeapordy or debate?
+ 
+ Or are you just being silly?

How about you? I can't get alt.binaries.pictures.erotica - am I being 
oppressed? censored?

K'Char
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,talk.politics.misc
From: puter@no1home.nashvil.ingr.com (Software Dude)
Subject: Men Are Not Cost Effective
Organization: WHAT?
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 15:14:09 GMT

 shore@tc.cornell.edu writes:
>engle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (nathan engle) writes:
>> 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.
>
>Napa is a place.
>
Yes, it is. I buy all of my auto parts there!  :-)
--
Puter		puter@no1home.nashvil.ingr.com		Go UofL Cardinals!
From: stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Smelling The Roses (was Re: Companies can afford it, right?)
Date: 11 Apr 92 00:44:12 GMT
Distribution: na

Valerie Maslak writes

+ I've had two children. If our society doesn't start valuing
+ child-raising and allocate resources to it, we'll end up with
+ serial killers and drive-by shootings and gang rapes
+ in Central Park being the norm...

Resources that will in all likelyhood remain under the control of
women.

Peachy keen. Ultimately it boils down to another men=billfold=$$$
equation. You may have the best of intentions, Ms. Maslak, but that's
the bottom line.

K'Char
From: stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: You want to win.
Date: 17 Apr 92 00:50:03 GMT
Distribution: na

Jon S. Wood writes
+ In article <6r9trvm@rpi.edu> mcgead@operators.its.rpi.edu (Darren S. Mcgeary)  
writes:
+ >  
+ >Typical anti-choice anti-sex pro-forced birth facist rightwinger DJR clone.
+ >
+ >
+ >-- 
+ >Darren McGeary - Nice Guy(TM)                 mcgead@rpi.edu
+ >Owner and General Manager                     Darren_McGeary@mts.rpi.edu
+ >The Macho Kings                               1990 NIL Champions
+ >PRO-CHOICE - THE AMERICAN WAY

+  Darren, your comment is interesting. Let us know when your girl-
+ friend or 'one night stand' calls you up and drops this line on you,
+ "Darren, I'm pregnant and I'm going to keep the baaaaaaaaby. See
+ ya later.... bye....". 
+ 
+  Let's talk choice, anti-sex and pro-forced facist rightwinger shit then,
+ boy.

No, no...wait till he's on a steady diet or ramen. He'll be ready to talk
then...

K'Char
From: stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: You want to win.
Date: 12 Apr 92 00:47:11 GMT
Distribution: na

Jennifer Brown writes

+ Any problems with this idea?  For God's sakes, you've got 6 months
+ to decide on what to do.  There's pro-life options, there's pro-
+ choice options, there seems to be *fairness*.  Oh, now don't go
+ talking about fairness to the child.  You and I both know that
+ we didn't remember what went on between the age of -9m and 0months.

Only the 6 month time span. Quite possibly at that point the "third"
party is viable outside the womb. Cut down the time a bit, and you
may have a winner.

+ You guys kept asking me for a 'suggestion'.  Well, here's one and
+ it seems pretty reasonable to me.  Besides, if the government and
+ courts and the legal system are going to get involved in our lives,
+ it may as well be from the start and with both parental parties
+ in mind.

I'd rather not have them involved to begin with...

K'Char
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Maternity leave
Date: 10 Apr 92 20:36:27 GMT
Reply-To: wrat@fiat.UUCP (wharfie)
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <1992Apr10.174004.19754@aero.org> nadel@aero.org (M.H. Nadel) writes:
>But that's not what anyone is proposing.  Typical disability leave for
>maternity is 6 weeks.  The proposals for (non-disability related) parental
>leave are all talking about unpaid leave. And nobody has proposed applying 
>these laws to small businesses.

	Proposals batted around here include a year's paid leave at "half-pay"
and 6 month's paid leave (I assumed full pay).  And much of the argument
seemed to center around my contention that this company, for one, couldn't
afford it unless it came directly out of the pockets of the rest of the 30-odd
employees.

	And why do only *women* get these nice paid leaves to do family
stuff?  Oh yeah, men just aren't as important to the family....

>The Wall Street Journal recently reported on a study which showed that
>the cost of maternity leave is significantly less than the cost of hiring
>and training replacement workers.

	But that's exeactly what I'd have to do if someone took a year off.
Hire and train a replacement.  Or distribute her work among the remaining
employees.

							W.rat

Xref: sparky soc.men:8401 soc.women:8930 talk.politics.misc:18159
From: bev@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu (Beverly Huntsberger)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Men Are Not Cost Effective
Date: 13 Apr 92 16:10:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: opusc.1992Apr13.161054.11781
Organization: Univ. of South Carolina, Columbia

In <1992Apr7.165151.20054@tc.cornell.edu> shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) writes:

>In article <1992Apr7.111239.29887@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>, 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,

>What I'd like to know is why Nathan thought soc.women was
>an appropriate place for the original posting.  Do you find
...

>Daniel J. Karnes' writings to suggest that men are stupid?
>You do not, because we know that these idiots are atypical.
>So why, exactly, has this been posted to soc.women? 
>-- 
>       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu

	Well, Melinda, I thought it was interesting. 
	Maybe he thought it was appropriate because
	the author is a woman and the subject has to
	do with taking a new view of an old problem.

	How does 'taking a new view of an old problem'
	imply soc.women? Well, I think, in general, a
	woman taking a new look at an old problem,
	tends to stand a good  chance of uncovering
	female attitudes about things which had generally
	been dealt with through male-only models. This is
	a consequence of our history.

	Bev
-- 
-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Just read his lips:
Now, he wants us to believe in the "tooth fairy".
-	-	-	-	-	-	-
From: baba@samadhi.Tymnet.COM (Duane Hentrich)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Condom use among Prostitutes
Date: 13 Apr 92 17:56:03 GMT
Organization: BT North America (Tymnet)

In article <7560096@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> post@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (David Post) writes:
>In your experience, do prostitutes *always* use condoms?

In my experience it is the customer who decides upon the 'action'. If the
hooker in question doesn't want you to use a condom, find another pro.
The only thing a prostitute *always* does is charge customers.

>I am wondering whether prostitution is "safer" sex than among the rest of the
>population.

Two things to think of. When using a condom is it safer to have sex with
someone who does not have the virus (HIV-positive) or someone who does?
Second, people with a large number of partners have a larger probability
of having any one of the STDs, all other variables being held equal.

In real life there is a great deal of variation in any grouping of people.
Prostitutes are no different in this. There are clean women in the business.
There are women in the business I wouldn't want to share a bar stool with.
In other words, they're just plain folk, like you. So don't think they're
any healthier or sicker than any other kind of promiscuous person.

-- 
d'baba Duane M. Hentrich	...!hplabs!oliveb!tymix!baba
                                         baba@Tymnet.Com
Warning: Expicit Thoughts
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: Mixed Couples -= but it's not racism =- 
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 92 23:52:26 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <12075@tamsun.tamu.edu> cnh5730@maraba.tamu.edu (Charles Herrick) writes:
>> flak about this - sometimes from total strangers.  
>
>
>This is very true. For a while I was dating a Korean female (actually, I  
>never date American females anymore, but that's another story :-), and I  
>never ceased to be amazed at how puposefully-rude people were willing to  
>be. 
>
>Especially American females, who would when walking by, refuse to make  
>room on the sidewalk, or waitresses in restaurants who would give bad  
>service.
>
>I had a Chinese girlfriend for a while and noticed the same thing.
>
>
I have't been in that situation, but it doesn't surprise me at all.
However, this has NOTHING to do with racism!

To draw an analogy from the labor-union movement: "feminists" would
be "militant union workers", who have more or less sworn solemn oaths
to squeeze as much as they possibly can from "management" (men),
while giving as little as possible in return, and actually enjoy
making the group they envy suffer. In this analogy, foreign-born women,
especially Asians, would be "non-union workers", who are threatening
their "incomes" (eligible American males) by providing what "management"
wants and needs in a much more cooperative manner. Or, to state it
bluntly, foreign women are providing to men "cheaply" what American
women want men to pay "dearly" for (male-bashing being a peculiarly
American phenomenon). So it's NO surprise at all to see these
"militant trade unionists" being rude (or worse!) to "non-union"
workers who are *literally* "in bed with management"!

Get the point?

-- 
  
        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