HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: msncra01@uctvax.uct.ac.za
Newsgroups: soc.women,talk.rape
Subject: Re: lioness method
Date: 12 Aug 92 09:17:08 +0200
Organization: University of Cape Town

In article <1992Aug11.131917.18787@hobbes.kzoo.edu>,
tweaver@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Tim Weaver) writes:

> I think most of the rhetoric at the beginning was written with the intention
> of shocking complacent women into taking some action.  A curious form of
> patronization. (You don't know how to take care of yourself, so I'll tell
> you).  I agree that effective action is better than being a passive victim,
> but the tone of the article was definitely presumptious at best.

There seems to be much criticism for the lioness article, but I can't help
feeling that it is purely _criticism_. Surely an article like that is a good
article, because it provides some very practical information, some actual
dirty-tricks combat advice which is going to be more useful than a lot of
theorising in the midst of an attack. The point about foot reflexes is
interesting. I am sure if one is wearing high-heels and can make the
connection, it would be devastating. What do the original authors think of the
criticism (sorry, I've forgotten who you were). As for the idea about
recovering, I would imagine one's chances in an attack situation are better if
one imagines that one will suffer _extreme_ damage. This is not to say that it
is true, but when attacked one doesn't want to pause and evaluate one's odds of
recovery. There is a story - I've forgotten who the guy was, or where I heard
it, sorry - about some commander who sailed with his troops to a foreign shore
to wage some war against their enemies. Once they had disembarked, he burnt all
their ships, and turned to his troops and said "That should put iron in your
souls; there's no going back now." I think his point is valid, and one learns
this in karate also: when one fights, one fights to win, not to compromise. To
believe that you will be destroyed if you lose, can cause panic if you believe
you will lose. To believe that you will be destroyed if you lose, but to know
that you can win, I think that can only improve your odds.

I wonder if we couldn't perhaps see some positive, draft recommendations for
the manuscript; or, when people criticise, they couldn't provide alternatives.
Let's face it: it's a violent world off the net. One can argue ideological
disputes over any manuscript indefinitely, but for rape victims and potential
rape victims its a meaningless endeavour. Yes, people can recover from rape,
but when you're about to be raped, you should not be thinking about recovery.

Looking forward to replies...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Mason-Jones
University of Cape Town, RSA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: Amy Young Leith <alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Personal Q, Need a Woman's View
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 10:21:53 -0500

In article <1992Aug13.200352.58141@cc.usu.edu> slzm9@cc.usu.edu writes:
>   Hello, I know this is not alt.personals but I need a woman's
>perspective. My girlfriend and I keep having the same fight
>and I would like to know why. She usually tries to give me some
>friendly advice:
>
>	"When my missionary friend comes to my birthday party on
>         Saturday please refrain from talking about religion with
>         him."

I'm not sure what your debating style is.  Perhaps she feels that a
"discussion" might lead to a heated arguement, insults, hurt feelings,
embarrassment, etc. 

I can understanding her asking for a nice, smooth evening on the night
of a party.  But otherwise, I don't see where she gets off thinking
she can rule what you talk about. 

amy
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Sexism by another name(was: Right to not support)
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 00:19:15 GMT

In article <2314@unet.UUCP> linda@wendy.net.com (Linda Hill) writes:

)decide to sleep with.  This is the message I'm receiving from the world I live
)in.  I haven't met enough men who think differently to refute the stereotype
)(or is all their talk about what they'd like to do with pratically every woman
)they meet just a lot of hot air?).  I _really_ have been given the impression
)that most of what men want to have to do with women is have sex with them, and
)that anything else that might develop comes secondarily.

)All the stories I hear from women are of having to fend off men trying to get
)them in bed soon after meeting them, and the men talk about "getting to third
)base" like it's a major goal in life.  Is it all a bunch of media hype, or
)what?

I've added soc.men

Some of the talk is hot air, and some of it isn't (IMO).

There *is* a fair amount of social pressure on men to at least act like they
want to have sex all the time.  A lot of men who want to 'fit in' go along
with it, I think.  I think the more macho or traditional types actually do
feel this way, (or at least think they do - see more below).

Similarly, there is a fair amount of social pressure on women not to have
sex right away.

Not everyone fits the stereotypes - either women or men.  Things have
loosened up a somewhat, but there's perhaps  been a bit of a backlash
recently either for the 'loose' woman or the 'non-macho' man (IMO).

I personally view this 'need for sex with anyone/everyone' as a 'defensive
need' as opposed to a 'real need'.  (Defensive needs are substituted for
'real needs', and one of the operational ways of detecting them is the fact
that they can't be satisfied since they aren't real, wheras real needs *can*
be satisfied)  The traditional, 'feminine' women also has a defensive
'security' need for 'comittment' comparable to the traditional 'macho' man's
'need' for sex.  (She can never get enough love/comittment, either). 
This can lead to a lot of conflict - both parties wind up feeling
unsatisfied.  (This psychological analysis paraphrased from Herb Goldberg's
book(s), "The Inner Male", which I thought made a lot of sense.)
From: biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel)
Subject: Re: Another right to not support?
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 18:47:45 GMT

kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall) writes:

>If a man wants children, he should find the right mate and they should be
>in agreement on starting a family.  In this situation, there will be no
>problems of women "depriving a man of his children".  


Aw, c'mon Janice, that's not how it works. What people "should" be
doing, and what actually happens are two entirely different things. 
People, relationships, feelings change over time. The fact is that
with current custody and child support legislation mothers will
generally be favored over fathers for the custody of children, especially
young children. That means that fathers can be compelled to become
occasional visitors in the lives of their children, be forced to pay
child support to the custodial parent, and have no legal recourse from
this double whammy. Put yourself in the father's position for a moment:
suppose tradition and legislation held that fathers were better "nurturing"
parents, and were awarded custody in divorce cases, with mothers being
allowed visitation, but compelled to pay child support. Now tell me how
you feel about a man "depriving a woman of her children".

Given the fact that divorce has become a matter of unilateral choice,
men are in jeopardy of losing their children to their wives at their
discretion. It is one reason why I would never get married again
without an iron-clad prenuptial agreement, and I loathe lawyers.

Regards,
       H. Biesel s.N.a.
From: alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu (Amy Young Leith)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: women's place in life
Date: 13 Aug 92 23:03:53 GMT
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington

In article <1992Aug11.211255.18984@dragon.acadiau.ca> 890530m@dragon.acadiau.ca (Darren MacKenzie) writes:

>Yes, it is bait for a flame by some crazy feminist, and I'm also going to
>throw in my two cents worth....
>
>I like to consider myself (although slightly sexist, but I REALLY don't
>care) fairly sensitive and emotional (moreso than the AVERAGE male).  I  
>like to have a girlfriend who is "soft" (hearted), sensitive, cuddly, and
>a total sweetheart.  Needless to say, with the rise of feminism (the
>source of CREATING my sexist attitude) it is becoming more and more
>difficult to find a girl like this.  It sort of goes along with the
>"typical traditional female" idea (kitchen, and the whole works).  If
>anyone knows an easy way to find a warm-hearted girl out there who
>isn't suicidal (as are the ones that I DO find), PLEASE...PLEASE let
>me know!!!

I might ask you where you are looking, and also, to expand a bit on
what "warmhearted, sensative, and cuddly" means to you.  I have some
of the most emotional, touchy (as in hugging, cuddling, etc) friends,
both male and female, and all are professional or professional-bound.


And I don't believe the rise in feminism can be used as a reason for
your sexism... if you feel that women should be a certain way because
they are women, that is sexist regardless of whether there are people
out there who disagree with you or not. 

amy
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: 6069870@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: hello my treats
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 18:19:30 GMT

may i be so bold as to ask you... for a friend of mine of course.
where is it that women go to find men,, so i can send my friend
over there.  bars are short of the mark. and the library is passe.
please, do this man a great deed. ladies of america, it's your
civic duty to give knowledge to a thirty something kinda guy!!!
***************** thank you verrrrry much!!! ********************



 ####### status quo is never happening ########
From: stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Look OUT! (was: Impossible)
Date: 12 Aug 92 14:02:53 GMT
Distribution: na

David Favor writes
+ > Say, isn't this one of the signs of the Apocolypse? I know I've found
+ > myself agreeing lately with lots of people I *never* thought I would...
+ 
+ > The end is near!!!
+ 
+ I remember the days when I "Knew" things. when I was "Sure" about this
+ or that. now I know that I know very little (or perhaps nothing). I am
+ sure that I am sure of nothing. ah for the good old days... :-)

I see, you've had your phd prelimis.

K'Char
From: oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Is this the right group?
Date: 13 Aug 92 17:45:17 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha

h226@hosp.med.umich.edu writes:

>I would like to address problems with 'relationships'.  In particular i was
>looking for a woman's point of view on why someone I know took a particular
>course of action.  Perhaps someone could point me to the proper news group?
>Thanks, Jim

Jim -- Try soc.singles.  There's a lot of relationship discussion there.
Not too many females post in soc.women and most of us are in a pretty bad
mood after we've read all the latest female-bashing anyway.

Sharon
From: stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Another right to not support?
Date: 15 Aug 92 03:29:19 GMT
Followup-To: soc.women
Organization: Murasami Labs

ljf wrote:

> financially and have artificial insemination.  If I were a man wanting
> a child, I'd contract out a birth mother. 

And as it stands now, even THAT's not much of an option, as the birth
mother may change her mind, and the "tender years" and "biology" 
arguments are used to defend that choice. Then find some wimpy judge
to overturn the contract.

K'Char
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: chapin@cbnewsc.cb.att.com ( Tom Chapin )
Subject: Re: Hating Men with Full Force
Organization:  Hickory Ridge - Lisle, IL
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 22:14:07 GMT

ljf writes:
>Kurt Strain writes:
>>Your justification defending the stand to hate all men is just 
>>the reasoning used by neo-Nazis and KKK members. 
>
>It's Crameresque.  You say all lesbigays are or support child
>molesters because NAMBLA marches in some Gay Pride parades.  You say
>all Republicans are racist because of David Duke.  You say all
>feminists are man-haters because some are.

Guess I musta missed the postings where Kurt discussed NAMBLA and
Duke.  But it's easy enough to see whether the three claims are
true.  If lesbigays do not support child molesting, then it will
be possible to find leaders of the movement denouncing any attempt
to support it.  And in fact such denunciations are easy to find.
If Republicans do not support the racism of David Duke, then it will
be easy to find leaders loudly denouncing him.  And they have.  If
feminists are not man-haters, then it will be easy to find feminist
leaders publically denouncing those who are... . . . . . . .  .  .

-- 
	     tom chapin                tjc@hrccb.att.com
	      (effective Aug 1, 1992:  tjc@hrcce.att.com)
From: dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Is this the right group?
Date: 14 Aug 92 16:28:53 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <oneil.713727917@cwis>, oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil) writes:
> h226@hosp.med.umich.edu writes:
> 
> >I would like to address problems with 'relationships'.  In particular i was
> >looking for a woman's point of view on why someone I know took a particular
> >course of action.  Perhaps someone could point me to the proper news group?
> >Thanks, Jim
> 
> Jim -- Try soc.singles.  There's a lot of relationship discussion there.
> Not too many females post in soc.women and most of us are in a pretty bad
> mood after we've read all the latest female-bashing anyway.

Yeah, right.  What's your definition of "not too many"?  Personally, I don't
see that much difference in gender between soc.women and soc.men.  Although
you'll probably just dismiss that as evidence that these supposed female
bashing men have taken over both groups.  Seems to me there are a pretty
fair number of women posting to both groups.  And as far as the female-bashing
issue is concerned, quite a few of the men in both groups take your side, or
don't they count?  We've done this whole female-bashing vs male-bashing thing
to death before, and I'm not really interested in being drawn into yet another
futile thread on the subject, unless you're willing to be a little more open
minded on the issue.


> Sharon

-- 

Dan S.
From: deannab@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Deanna Bergstrom)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 17:27:16 GMT
Subject: Re: Personal Q, Need a Woman's View
Organization: HP Santa Rosa Site (NMD MTA MWTD)
Newsgroups: soc.women

This is an interesting situation, and somewhat familiar to me.

My mother grew up in an extremely verbally violent home.  She cannot 
stand dissension or fighting.  On the other hand, one of my dad's
favorite sports is arguing, with anyone about anything....especially
at the dinner table, with guests, after a drink or 2 or 3.  My mother
tolerates it to a point because she loves dad, but then she'll
start telling him to stop it and telling the person he's talking to
that he doesn't really mean it, etc.

And since she can't stand it, especially when he argues with ME, she
has taken to asking him ("telling" him) not to bring certain topics up
when I'm around.  And usually (but not always), he'll comply.  Which 
is amazing, because the surest way to get my dad to do something is to
tell him NOT to do it.

Now about your girlfriend....she probably cares (maybe too much) what
other people think of her, and if YOU offend someone, she sees it as 
reflecting on her.  In addition, she may be like my mom and just get
really uncomfortable when people argue.  You, on the other hand, may
be like many humans and resent someone telling you what you can and
can't do.

If your discussions about religion or whatever with her friends have turned
into verbal flame-fests, it likely makes her really uncomfortable, while
to you it is entertaining and interesting.  If you enjoy making her
uncomfortable (this isn't likely to be something you can easily get
her to change), then go for it.  Otherwise, steer cleer of it, would me
my advice.  It doesn't seem like that big a deal (IMHO).  I have had
numerous Mormon co-workers and friends, and they're human too....they
have many many other interests just like the rest of us.  I'm sure you
can come up with SOMETHING besides religion to takl about.  If you're
interested in his missionary experience, ask him about the country and
it's people.  Of course, if he tries to convert you, then you might be
within your "rights" to try to convert HIM....but don't bring the
subject up.


just my $.02....

Deanna
deannab@sr.hp.com
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.
From: ng@MOE.OPTICS.ROCHESTER.EDU (Baldwin Ng)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: REQUEST from GIRLS:  List of 20 WORST/UNORIGINAL ways to ask a girl out
Date: 17 Aug 92 19:23:27 GMT


Hello to all!

I am interested to compile a list of "TOP 20 WORST/UNORIGINAL ways to ask a
freshman girl out" for the incoming freshman guys here at U of Rochester.
Any input/suggestion/experience??  I will pick the 20 ways from all your
replies that I think are THE WORST/FUNNY and post it up in "soc.college" at the
end of this month!

Thanks in advance!

Baldwin
(ng@moe.optics.rochester.edu)

Newsgroups: soc.women
From: samuell@cis.uab.edu ('s)
Subject: Re: Hating Men with Full Force
Organization: CIS, Univ of Alabama at Birmingham
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 23:35:35 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.162420.4446@tc.cornell.edu> shore@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Melinda Shore) writes:
>In article <92232.29425.6069870@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM> 6069870@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
>>this sounds like a dame who never gets any.
>
>Funny, that sounds exactly like the kind of thing a guy who
>never gets any would say.  What, precisely, were you intending
>to contribute to the conversation with that remark?
>
>I am not surprised that there are women who hate men.  What
>surprises me is *which* women hate men.  No, it isn't the
>radical feminists or the lesbian separatists who make sweeping
>and general anti-male statements, it's the heterosexual housewives
>and the rather ordinary, run-of-the mill women who engage in
>outrageous male-bashing.  And it's the men who behave in the
>most disgustingly sexist manner who are confused and angered by
>it.  Ironic, huh?
>-- 
>       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu
                                ^^^^^^
                 Interesting T H E O R Y , Melinda.

     Samuella Solomon - Gulf Coast Practice Fringe - samuell@cis.uab.edu
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<>--'--{@              A mind is a terrible thing.                *{--%===<>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: h226@hosp.med.umich.edu
Subject: Is this the right group?
Organization: Univ of Michigan Hospitals
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 11:55:10 GMT

I would like to address problems with 'relationships'.  In particular i was
looking for a woman's point of view on why someone I know took a particular
course of action.  Perhaps someone could point me to the proper news group?
Thanks, Jim
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: soc.feminism
X-To: HILLEL GAZIT
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 15:00:00 GMT

gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes...
HG> In article <1992Jul30.231823.29183@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
HG> kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts) writes:

HG> >One of the moderators soc.feminism told me that they had very few complaint
HG> >about the way that group is moderated.  I found that surprising.

HG> They make a real effort to keep Politically Incorrect people off
HG> soc.feminism.  When I still tried to post there, I posted the
HG> rejections in soc.men; the righteous attitude and narrow minds
HG> of the moderators were pretty obvious from these rejections.

Try not to be too condemning, Hillel...

Most people would say that *I* am "Politically Incorrect," but somehow, I am
able, with rare exceptions in case of very controversial subject matters (ie.,
discussing rape or abortion), to be permitted to post.

Don't blame the moderators - they are only doing their job!

But if there is a "method" for me, it is this : I always try to keep my posts
within the feminist framework, and it *is* possible to disagree with feminist
viewpoints while maintaining the feminist framework.  Indeed, it is even
possible to post in the feminist framework without being implicitly forced
to admit the validity of feminist constructs.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * We now return to our regularly scheduled flame-throwing.
-- 
Ross Ridge - The Great HTMU					     l/	 //
								    [OO][oo]
ross@zooid.guild.org						    /()\/()/
uunet.ca!zooid!ross						     db	 //
From: stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: REQUEST from GIRLS: List of 20 WORST/UNORIGINAL ways to ask a girl
Date: 20 Aug 92 23:02:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: stayman.stricher-200892190158
Followup-To: soc.women
Organization: Murasami Labs

SALIMM@MAINE.MAINE.EDU wrote:

> 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.

Some will, some won't. And some will use you for all you are worth to
them, and once done with you, to toss you on their bone pile. 

I've learned the hard way not to let a woman take advantage of me.
I specify women because I know how to deal with men, but women have
been my bane thus far.

So what am I getting at? Use your head and not your heart.

K'Char
Newsgroups: soc.women