HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich)
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Rally
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 03:33:05 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: (Ha!)

In article <92106.171643ELLEN@PURCCVM.BITNET> ELLEN@PURCCVM.BITNET writes:
>Yes, we were there and it was great, tho the drive was tiring.  My
>favorite slogan was "we're fierce, we're feminists, and we're in your
>face!" 
Personally, I couldn't get over "we're here, we're pissed, we're
not going shopping!" :-) Nothing like a movement with a twisted
sense of humor. (Although it does make hash of /Janet's -- was
it /Janet? -- "Shopping Feminazi from Hell" T shirts...)

> I hope we elect a Pro-Choice President so we don't have to do
>this again, but IF so I would like to see some official standards made
>of light-weight metal that could spin in the wind that had the names of
>the different states--we would like to have hooked up with more people from
>Indiana.

Huh, what with all the banners, things seemed remarkably organized,
even if no one i know found anyone they were actually looking for :-)

Sigh. You mean when we win we can't do it again just for the fun of it?

paul
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,soc.singles
Date: Tue,  7 Apr 1992 21:28:01 -0400 
From: "Peter A. Simon" <ps3p+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: buying things
	<1992Apr7.135658.12733@risky.ecs.umass.edu>

>From: shortell@spock.ecs.umass.edu (Laurel L Shortell)
>Subject: Re: buying things
>Date: 7 Apr 92 13:56:58 GMT
> 
>In article <vxljs3f@lynx.unm.edu> blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr3.022831.875@ait.com> eleanor@ait.com (Eleanor
Evans) write
>s:
>>>I'd like to buy a man thing--is there like a catalog, or something?  A
>>>toll-free number?  Where do I sign up?
>>
>>Well, I know where you can rent a great man thing- by the hour or day- with
>>the man still attached (that part being unfourtunately non-negotible ';-)
>>Leave a message at this here account ';-)
> 
>What a disgusting thing to say! She was asking an innocent
>question, and you felt you had to jump on the opportunity
>to spout vile comments? Keep it in your pants, buster.

Hey, Laurel, lighten up!

Peter
 

Xref: sparky alt.sex:13772 soc.women:8738
From: rstevew@deeptht.santa-cruz.ca.us (Richard Steven Walz)
Newsgroups: alt.sex,soc.women
Subject: Re: HELP How do you help someone who won't be happy?
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 92 17:19:52 GMT
Organization: The Armory

In article <1992Apr3.074315.10514@midway.uchicago.edu> pmm7@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>sounds to me like this person is really depressed and being 
>ill served by her therapist.  
>
>and telling her to "snap out of it" won't help, just make
>her feel worse because she's now *guilty* of being depressed
>if she can't.  (most can't)  
>
>help her to find a new therapist!!!  if this has been going 
>on for 6 monthes or more, make it a psychiatrist so if she 
>needs antidepressents, she can get them.  
>
>good luck.  
>peg
>-oh, btw, if she isn't ready to admit she needs help/resists
>help, then there's probably nothing you can do.  
>sigh.  
>depression is a drag for everyone involved.  

Geeze, it sounds like the person who is dominated by needing to help
this other person is the sadder of the too. I think they both need
help.         Honest, you can try to "fix" everything way too much and
become an obsessive-compulsive about it.        - Steve
Xref: sparky soc.women:8967 soc.college:1948 talk.rape:900
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.college,talk.rape
From: flaps@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal)
Subject: Re: fraternities
Organization: Dynamic Graphics Project, University of Toronto
Distribution: na
Date: 14 Apr 92 22:39:44 GMT

sag0798@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Sassan Attari ) writes:
>At least in my fraternity, when something like a rape (and it hasn't
>to my knowledge) occurs, we, as members of the fraternity, are encouraged to
>CORRECT the wrong that has been done, not HIDE it.

So you're saying that event X has never occurred, and when it occurs you always
do Y?  So in what sense is this true?  This seems to be a fairly charged
discussion; I don't think you are making an abstract logical point (that the
statement is "vacuously true", as they say).  Thus I can only conclude that
either your understanding of the flow of events in the universe is extremely
faulty or that you are trying to give a false impression and are taking refuge
in the fact that your statement has no logical import.

Of course, I also take the fact that you are not aware of any rapes in the
history of your fraternity as evidence that they are hidden, since based on my
knowledge of the frequency of rape (and the assumption that at least the
frequency is not so drastically LOWER at fraternities) I find it virtually
inconceivable that a rape has never occurred at your fraternity.

ajr
From: shortell@spock.ecs.umass.edu (Laurel L Shortell)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: abortion is a women's issue
Date: 17 Apr 92 01:12:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: risky.1992Apr17.011218.2259
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Apr16.004943.2364@ducvax.auburn.edu> kenneth@ducvax.auburn.edu writes:
>In article <carol.703398081@ee.uts.EDU.AU>, carol@ee.uts.edu.au (Carol Gibson) writes:
>> I know this is going to raise hell - but what the hell..
>> 
>> ABORTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MEN!
>
>It has everything to do with men.  95% of Congress is male.  So is the
>Supreme Court.  So is the President.  Congress makes the laws that govern
>the country, the Supreme Court interprets those laws.  When women control
>the Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Oval Office, it will no longer
>be a man's issue.
>

What you say does not address her statement. What you say
addresses the issue of male legislation concerning abortion.
Two different issues.
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: tparks@world.std.com (terry parks)
Subject: Re: Carol Moseley Braun (was Re: Women in Politics)
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 17:14:22 GMT

>        I have no use for a bozo who is ill-informed and so biased himself
>to think that the League of Women Voters is discriminatory.

Could you, or anyone, tell us why they 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.


>>>What's your problem with her?
>>She's a racist and sexist bigot.
>>>What's your deal?
>>>You have called her all sorts of names, and still not provided one
>>>legitimate criticism.  
>>I say that a candidate annoucing that they will employ gender and race bias
>>in who they will represent should not be elected. This is legitimate
>>to me. You disagree and pray to the gods of "good" bigotry.

>        So basically you're saying that if a person notices that certain
>genders and certain races are not getting heard AND DEMONSTRATES THIS,
>then he or she cannot make a special effort to make those concerns heard?

I've never heard a gender or a race, what do they sound like? Let me expose
this bigoted thinking of yours. You, as a feableminded bigot can't
comprehend people acting on the merits of a issue rather than simply
always favoring people of the same gender and race and hence you believe
that one balances what you can only see as males supporting males by
giving special preferred treatment to females who, in your bigoted
way of thinking, will of course matter-of-factly only support females.
I guess we can call this your let's-have-the-police-steal-cars-to-stop-car-theft
mentality.

>        Warped, twisted logic.

Indeed.


Xref: sparky soc.women:8970 soc.men:8453
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: pro-choice == pro-(womens' only) choice?
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com
Date: 14 Apr 92 10:03:05 GMT
Organization: M&E (Division of EDS), Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: mdhc

In article <1992Apr9.101629.18624@newstand.syr.edu>, mprisco@lynx.cat.syr.edu () writes:
> In article <kteqemINN71u@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com (Dances with Drums) writes:
> 
> I think this is a very valid point.  But maybe we need to look at what
> happens when they find a baby in a trash can.  Don't they usually
> go looking for the mother?  Do they ever charge a man with the
> same kind of crime (I'm not sure what it is, but there seems to
> be no pitty for a woman who abandons her baby) if he leaves a
> pregnant woman??  After all, he is, in essence, disposing of
> the baby as much as some one who leaves it on a door step, in
> a garbage can, whatever....  
> 
> 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.  Abortion is
> the only way a woman can walk away from a pregnancy.  It's
> too bad that men can't sustain a pregnancy on their own but
> that's the real gender difference, isn't it?
> 

  But, as you say, the woman CAN walk away from the pregnancy, legally
and with impunity. She cvan have an abortion, dispose of the babc that way and
most people will not think the less of her. Indeed, most people
probanbly will never know she did it.

  A man cannotdo that. He can walk away but it is a crime
to do so, there are laws and means to punics him, and I don't know of 
anyone who would look on such a man with approval. In any event,
everyone WILL know because the woman is pointing a finger at him.
The father who abandomns his child is thus made more visible while
the woman who abandons (aborts) her child remains hidden.

  If the woman had the child, it was her decision to do so. If the man 
has become a father, it was still HER decision to let it happen. 


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com Homo Cyberneticus-Computational Man  |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|   I don't have anything against you...........but I wish I did!  :)    |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
From: mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mikeey J. Lin)
Newsgroups: alt.personal,soc.women,soc.singles,alt.fan.q
Subject: Re: LOOKING FOR NANCY @ BRANDEIS UNIV. IN WALTHAM, MA.
Date: 5 Apr 92 21:02:33 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1992Apr4.050521.17318@access.digex.com> deja-q@access.digex.com (Lin Yon Q) writes:

>How bloody ROMANTIC can you get!  Get a clue.  She'd call if she was
>interested.  Don't you read the little "warning" notice that you're
>costing the net thousands of dollars by posting your dating woes for the
>rest of the world.  Get a phone book, you idiot!

>Q

	Wow! I can't believe this guy "Q" here. This is the third time I  
get a chance to "respond" to his "comments" here today. HEY DUDE! Hello...
Is ANYONE home? Do you know anything about sensitivity? Or are you enjoy
shooting people down? You're complaining about him using up the net money
by posting his article? You hypocrite! Next time, try giving people more
constructive criticisms, you'll make more friends that way. By the way, can
you say "FRIENDS?" (yeah, I know, it's a new vocabulary word)

						Mikeey

PS Please keep your nasty comments out of BOTH soc.men and soc.women.
Newsgroups: alt.personal,soc.women,soc.singles,alt.fan.q
From: deja-q@access.digex.com (Lin Yon Q)
Subject: Re: LOOKING FOR NANCY @ BRANDEIS UNIV. IN WALTHAM, MA.
Organization: Express Access Public Access UNIX, Greenbelt, Maryland USA
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 01:53:00 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.045351.18869@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mikeey J. Lin) writes:
>	"Look slime! Just because no women will speak to you doesn't mean
>that there can't be communication between the sexes. Hopefully, with education
>and communication ignorant and narrow-minded people, and I use that term 
>loosely to include you, will be able to cope with today's society. Perhaps
>if some tolerance, communication, and understanding were exercised by all
>people we would not have quite as many conflicts in society."

DUH!  Some sniveling little college twit who believes that the ultimate
in communication between the sexes means chasing after women over the net
because they are just too thick to understand that if she wanted to talk
to him, she has the raw talent and ability to use the goddamn telephone
instead of subjecting a few million people to his drivel.  Give it up
dweebo and try solving your problems without typing at a computer screen.
Or are you afraid it might make a difference in your life?
>					ajg4_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu

>Hello Michael,        
>
>	Just thought you might be interested in a comment by someone here
>who was "slightly disgusted" by your comment. 

Is this someone who hasn't figured out how to post all by itself yet?
Someone in your BASIC class perhaps?  

Q



Newsgroups: soc.women
From: bev@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu (Beverly Huntsberger)
Subject: Re: feminists are bad in bed
Organization: Univ. of South Carolina, Columbia
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 16:50:33 GMT

In <1992Apr4.043715.13880@access.digex.com> deja-q@access.digex.com (Lin Yon Q) writes:

>In article <9712@bgsuvax.bgsu.edu> valdes@bgsu.edu (oscar Valdes) writes:
>>In article <dirk.701663653@vincent1.iastate.edu> dirk@iastate.edu (Sleepy) writes:

>>>In <9685@bgsuvax.bgsu.edu> valdes@bgsu.edu (oscar Valdes) writes:
>>>>	This is exactly what I hear.  However, I don't have
>>>>    first-hand knowledge. Their physical appearance and
>>>>    care is normally repulsive and I wouldn't want to have
>>>>    sex with them anyways.

>>>     My, aren't we shallow ? Besides, I know many feminists,
>>>     and none of them are, IMHO, repulsive. Apparently,
>>>     unlike you, a mind intrigues me.

>>	To paraphrase you, go back and read again.  My comment
>>      applies to a special type of feminist.  It is very
>>      specific, and it has nothing to do with intelligence.

>Yeah, his comment only applies to feminists who wouldn't
>sleep with him.

>>	Don't put words in my mouth.

>Why not?  They sound more intelligent than yours.

>Q

	Actually, he means all those "specifically",
	_really_ "special, normally repulsive, wouldn't
	want to have sex with, no intelligence" TYPE feminists;
	you've heard of. ;)  Sounds to me to be a bit
	obsessive, but hey, that's his choice. Unless
	of  course its an uncontrollable reaction to
	too much porn.  ;)  Personally, I'm bored with
	this particular net-fantasy at this point, so
	"back to you, Jim".

	Bev

	Yesterday I was a feminist, so today I'm
	being repulsive to make up for it. ;)

-- 
-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Just read his lips:
Now, he wants us to believe in the "tooth fairy".
-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: lstewart@watserv1.waterloo.edu (L. Stewart -- IS      Office 1058)
Subject: Re: abortion is a women's issue
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 16:57:40 GMT

In article <carol.703398081@ee.uts.EDU.AU> carol@ee.uts.edu.au (Carol Gibson) writes:
>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

Dear Carol, this group is unmoderated and exists as I understand
it to discuss issues of primary interest to women. Because women
do not exist in a vacuum the issues bleed over and become concerns
shared by men. The statement in all caps above is inflammatory to
be sure and certainly one of ignorance. Abortion affects men 
emotionally, spiritually and philosophically. I have read this 
group for over a year and I try to keep my posts to a minimum and
do most of my writing on soc.men, this is out of respect for the
group and the women who write here. I enjoy the group and I learn
here.                                
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: carol@ee.uts.edu.au (Carol Gibson)
Subject: Re: Suppose pornography DOES encourage violence?
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney, Australia
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 01:07:16 GMT
Keywords: first amendment, KKK, offensive material

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.

sounds a fair enough supposition to me...

>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.

Well most of the rest of the world knows that america is a sick country.

>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?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.... are you criticising the
fight to stop denigration of women just because you don't see racism 
recieving as much publicity? The two fights are seperate issues and 
would only suffer by paying too much attention to each other (except
in the case of say, violent KKK sponsered pornography involving black
women... I'll bet those creeps would get off on it too)

I really don't think the issue here is whether one human being is
"worth" more than another. Join any fight that feels important to you
Paul, but please don't try and trivialise another by comparison.

	Carol


%/%/%/%/%/%/%/%/%/%/%/%/%/%/%/%/%/%/%/%/%/%/%/%/%/%/%/%/%/%/%/%/%/%/
Carol Gibson, Research Assistant and Programmer 
Department of Electrical Engineering		 
University of Technology, Sydney, Australia	 
carol@ee.uts.edu.au				 
%/%/%/%/%/%/%/%/%/%/%/%/%/%/%/%/%/%/%/%/%/%/%/%/%/%/%/%/%/%/%/%/%/%/
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.fan.q
From: charity@owlnet.rice.edu (Charity R. Bettoney)
Subject: Re: Makeup, Cosmo, Ms. and car paint.
Organization: Rice University
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 04:27:21 GMT

In article <1992Apr4.224928.18311@access.digex.com> deja-q@access.digex.com (Lin Yon Q) writes:

>of course all women force their husbands to buy them cosmetics, and, of 
>course, all women in fact MARRY their husbands in order to obtain these
>narcotic type cosmetics,

Huh?!  Oh, no!  I have a whole shelf of cosmetics and I've never even been
married!  I've been doing this makeup thing all wrong!  Thanks for setting
me straight, Q.

>Ah, the blithering of the truly deranged.  Mike, get a life.  Get a job.
>Stop posting to the net.  
>
>Q

Advice is much easier to give than to take, huh, Q?



-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Charity R. Bettoney             ppP8&             (char *)ity
charity@owlnet.rice.edu        8'^_^`8      (This only looks vaguely
Rice University               o8\`='/8o     like me, but what the heck.)
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: tparks@world.std.com (terry parks)
Subject: Re: Carol Moseley Braun (was Re: Women in Politics)
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 03:14:54 GMT


>Certain problems face blacks and women simply because they are
>black or female.

Such as? I would really love to see a list of these unique to Blaks
and unique to women problems. Now, women may have a problem (no s)
of that pertaining to the physical consequences of childbearing
but how is giving away scholarships to girls and women a solution
rather than mandating pregnancy leave availability (which, BTW, is already
in existence, but maybe that's the point).

>A race-blind/gender-blind solution won't solve these
>problems simply BECAUSE they are race/gender blind. 

These problems must already be solved, unless you really have a list to post.
 
>Going back to Ms. Braun, the unhidden assumption here is that
>minorities and women are not being heard in the Senate.

And the factual basis for this is?  Something like, although they get
all the restricted awards, classes, scholarships, grants, jobs, contracts, these
people should be getting free daily lunches and preferred airport parking?
Since EVERYTHING restricted by gender or race goes exclusively to "minorities"
and women, something is certainly being heard.
From: albert@sevenlayer.cs.wisc.edu (Joseph Albert)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,talk.rape
Subject: Re: more thoughts on a new slant to rape stats
Date: 10 Apr 92 00:58:47 GMT
Article-I.D.: daffy.1992Apr10.005847.19505
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Madison -- Computer Sciences Dept.

In article <1992Apr8.221523.13104@lmpsbbs.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:

>>i DO think of rape as terrorism.  as a MALE professor of mine has stated,
>>"rapists are the vanguard of patriarchy."

>I probably mentioned this before, but the only study I've seen on this
>topic showed absolutely *no* correlation between 'patriarchy' (as
>measured by women's wages, women on the police force, women judges)
>and rape rates.  So, you can think of 'patriarchy' causing rape, but
>there is no evidence to actually support this position (that I am
>aware of) and at least some evidence to refute it.

I doubt there has been any attempt to develop a scientifically sound numerical
measure of `patriarchy', much less applying that measure to a study comparing
it with rape frequencies.

I do know of a study (Neil Malamuth, UCLA) which found high positive
correlations between per capita levels of sales of pornography and 
rape frequencies.

If, instead of 'patriarchy causing rape', one thinks about 
'patricarchy allowing rape', then considering how we blame
rape victims instead of their rapists for rapes, let 1 in 605
alleged rapists go acquitted, insist that the frequency of rape is
orders of magnitude smaller than it really is, pretend that
the rape issue is just a radical feminist plot and not a
serious social problem in need of attention, cut funding
for rape crisis/treatment centers, collectively fund very
little research on rape as compared to other crimes of
comparable magnitude, then yes, we continue to allow rape
to continue. In this sense, the patriarchy allows rape.

And this allowance of rape, the ultimate expression of
the physical (and legal) power difference between men
and women is like society implicitly saying to women, `Men can
rape you and there is little you can do about it except
hope that the rapist (if caught) receives one of the 1 conviction
in every 605 rape trials, and hope that you recover in the 3 to 5
years it takes 80% of all rape victims to recover from the resultant
traumatic stress, and there's nothing we are going to do about it,
so too bad!.'

I'm not sure what the original poster meant by vanguard of
the patriarchy, but rape as a social and health problem does
indeed form a significant barrier to social equality.

Joseph Albert
albert@cs.wisc.edu
From: kenneth@ducvax.auburn.edu
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Male Bashing and Abortion
Date: 16 Apr 92 22:45:00 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.161258.19558@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>, btwomey@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (william.tw0mey) writes:
> In article <1992Apr16.053003.2372@ducvax.auburn.edu> kenneth@ducvax.auburn.edu writes:
> ...
>>I must've missed something.  Women can get pregnant without a donation from
>>a male?  Ah! I see my "Spore Theory" is still intact! :)
>    ^^^^
> Last I heard, humans were not fertile with other species.
> So in this case, you have to drop the politically correct term,
> go for accuracy (shudder), and use the evil word, "man". 
> Although "boys" can donate as well.
> 
>>Ken
> 
> Not that Ken made this mistake intentionally.

Sorry about that, Bill.  I thought people were intelligent enough to 
realize I was talking about a HUMAN male.  Apparently not.

Ken