HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: soc.women

In soc.women, brennan@hal.com (Dave Brennan) writes:
   |> On 6 Oct 92 16:36:47 GMT, rivero@mdcbbs.com (Michael Rivero) said:
   |>   My suggestion is that you play a bit of detective and find out as much
   |> as you can about how your love mate 

   |While this may work in the short term, it seems to me that "playing" a role
   |that isn't really who you are won't fool someone forever.  I'm no expert
   |though.  Do you want to be (liked/loved/attractive) because of who you are
   |or who you pretend to be?  

   |On another topic, I noticed that all the replies to the original posts were
   |from men.  It'd be nice to hear from some women on this topic.

I think that a walk through the park (hand in hand) is much more romantic than
anything he could have a store deliver.  If a man prefers to send chocolates
but takes me on that walk, I am not 'fooled' but do appreciate the fact that
he can abide by my tastes.  I suppose it would be ideal if we could all find
partners that shared our feelings exactly but I disagree with the notion that
long term relationships are hurt by some acting.  This is quite different than
the games people play in the early stages of dating.  Suppose a woman knows that
her SO is a Fredrick's of Hollywood fan and he knows she is a total prude but
she wears a black lace neglige for his birthday.  She does not mean to fool him
and he is not fooled.  She did it for him and he appreciates the gesture -- it
actually means *more* to him because it is not her normal behavior.
Romantic can be defined as 'pay ATTENTION to your partner (and their desires)',
not 'flowers, candles, and dancing'.
It's little things that are spontaneous and from the heart that mean the most.
Think of her and let her know it - don't worry so much about the form it takes.
If she likes flowers, bring one when it is not her birthday.  If she likes
chocolate, buy a truffle at every city on your business trip rather than a box
full at the last airport -- tell her how often she was in your thoughts.
From: SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA (Graydon)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Mattel and math avoidance in girls
Date: 10 Oct 92 19:30:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: QUCDN.92284.153028SAUNDRSG
 <Oct.2.01.03.08.1992.9541@remus.rutgers.edu>
 <1992Oct5.182709.22724@asuvax.eas.asu.edu>
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston

Um, folks, a ways back someone posted to the effect that Mattel
just did a bunch of research to get statements that their target
market for Barbies (whatever age range that is) *would agree with*.

So what you're really arguing for is that large corporations should
actively try to condition children's beliefs in 'positive' ways.

Why not just not *buy* the damn silly things?  *Lots* better than
giving large corporations a mandate to brainwash.

Graydon
From: aaf0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (Andrew Aaron Feigin)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: An Old Male Fantasy... GIVE ME A BREAK!
Date: 15 Oct 92 15:38:49 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

OK, MAYBE YOU MISSED THE POINT.  PEOPLE DIE IN WARS, AND WE DON'T SEND ANYONE
OUT WHO ISN'T FIT TO BE THERE.  ATHSMATICS CAN'T GO, AND SO ON.
IF YOU ARE A HULK OF A WOMEN, GO AND HAVE A BALL.

MY TWO CENTS.




In article <1992Oct15.012950.11891@midway.uchicago.edu>, mec6@quads.uchicago.edu
 (rini) writes:
>martinjp@cs.washington.edu (John Martin) writes:
>
>>When I was in jump school at Fort Benning, Ga...
>
>[lots of stories about how women can't cut it in the military, deleted...]
>
>>Perhaps women from other cultures may be successful in combat but I do
>>not think American women have what it takes, physically and mentally
>>(emotionally?). Generally speaking of course :)
>
>Now, John, I'm absolutely sure we could come up with at least as
>many personal accounts of how men (generally speaking of course)
>make lousy parents.  Should we thereby conclude that American men
>do not have what it takes to be good parents (physically, mentally
>and emtionally)?  Perhaps then we should insist that mothers should
>always be awarded custody then, because of these broad generalizations.
>Does that sort of argument make sense to you?
>
>Personally, I find it very distasteful.
>
>rini
>

BYE
-- 
Xref: sparky soc.women:17772 soc.men:17773
From: rdh@Veritas.COM (Robert Hartman)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: An Old Male Fantasy that needs to pass
Date: 15 Oct 92 18:55:10 GMT
Organization: VERITAS Software

In article <1992Oct14.185806.12813@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> btwomey@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (william.tw0mey) writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.165939.21419@beaver.cs.washington.edu> martinjp@cs.washington.edu (John Martin) writes:
>
>[ Interesting experiences deleted ]
>
>>War is one arena that cannot be massaged into a kinder gentler place to make
>>it easier for women to compete.  Females in combat will not receive the 
>>same types of concessions from the enemy that they expect in our workplace.  
>
>I doubt that they would expect concessions if boot camp is run
>correctly.

I think that's true.  I also suspect that since girls typically haven't
been raised with the same emphasis on suppressing feelings and being
"little soldiers" from the time they're three, it might take women a
little longer to come up to speed in basic training.  I see no reason
to think that, once the military develops methods to break down women
that are more appropriate to their background, females can't be reduced
to combat robots that are every bit as effective as males.

>>Women combatants will jeopardize the combat effectiveness of their unit
>>and will undermine the nation's effectiveness in waging a war when necessary.
>
>Doubt it.

So do I.

>>Society is conditioned to expect male casualties, when daughters are being
>>raped and killed in combat things will be different.
>
>Well, it should be the case that: society not be conditioned
>to expect male causalties, when sons are being raped and killed
>in combat things will be different.

Agreed.  Changing the propaganda that is used to condition
society is far easier than one might think.

>>Perhaps women from other cultures may be successful in combat but I do
>>not think American women have what it takes,
>>physically and mentally (emotionally?). Generally speaking of course :)
I think that this may well be true right now.  But I suspect that this
is because the military hasn't adapted to take advantage of the
strengths that females can bring to combat.  As long as the
military tries to make females into males, so they know what to
do with them, our military won't assimilate females very well.

>>John P. Martin		     
>Bill Twomey

-r
Xref: sparky soc.women:17777 soc.men:17780
From: rdh@Veritas.COM (Robert Hartman)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: An Old Male Fantasy that needs to pass
Date: 15 Oct 92 19:03:00 GMT
Organization: VERITAS Software

In article <1992Oct14.094201.1@mdcbbs.com> rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.230428.17982@midway.uchicago.edu>, mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:
>> In article <1992Oct12.104534.2616@mdcbbs.com> 
>> rivero@mdcbbs.com (Michael Rivero) writes:
>>>
>>>  All I am saying is that there is a lot to modern warfare that depends on
>>>sheer physical strength, and the average woman is smaller and weaker than the
>>>average man. Any military commander who sends women into a hand to hand
>> 
>> Said military commander is no fool if the women are well-qualified.
>> 
>  And what if the opposing military commander fields well-qualified men,just
>as both sides run out of gasoline?

Hand-to-hand combat depends on a lot of other factors besides just size
and strength.  Stealth, cleverness, quickness, stamina, and motivation
all play into it.  The Big Bad Americans had a helluva time dealing
with those itty bitty Viet Cong.  In a tight situation where supplies
are short, a company of women might have an advantage for the simple
reason that women tend to eat less than men.

-r
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.singles,soc.penpals
From: jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton)
Subject: Re: Wanted Straight Female
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 13:16:19 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.095636.28301@usl.edu> cs261159@ucs.usl.edu (Yu Ying-Bin) writes:
>          I am looking a warm and sinceer women. I am 25, from
>   R.O.C and I don't bother which part of country are you from. I
>   am looking for the person not any nationality,color or race. I
>   am a very honest person. Please send email at cs261159@ucs.usl.edu.
 
 Either I'm clairevoyant(which I doubt or I'd know how to spell it)
or I've seen this personal and a couple others 2 or 3 times in the
last couple days.
 
 Look guys it won't work here. I posted one for the honeydew melon
of my dreams and all I got was NADA, ZILCH, SQUAT.
 Hey, it's lonely out in the garden.
 
 Why just the other day I was posting about my motorcycle
to alt.personals when I didn't get a response either. Isn't the
net quirky?
 
 But I would never tell anyone where to post. Of course if I saw
a six foot long strand of toilet paper stuck to your shoe I wouldn't
tell you that either. But I would follow you, to see peoples reactions.

-Easily Amused.
 
================================================================================
 Ipsissimus of the Inner Order of Sesquipedalian Fruitcakes - IIOSF XOX Dawn
 Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. DoD#564. There ain't no more.
================================================================================
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: What one gets out of Boot Camp
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 20:28:49 GMT

mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
] 
] I hope you're not suggesting that strong women who can fight should
] be kept out of battle....  
] 
] (I *thought* that's what all soldiers got out of boot camp... If not,
] something should be fixed *there*.) 


1. The MOST important thing one learns in boot camp
is how to be strong enough to move one's barrack bag
full of uniforms off station. One shows up in Boot camp
basically with the clothes on one's Back... and then
trains, and trains, and Trains, so that after getting
all of that JUNK called a 'preliminary issue' one can
carry it all to the NEAREST TAXI STAND.

{ it is important to have 'boot campers' as they are
the best source for uniform items for Petty Officers who
have drawn shore patrol, and need all those nifty bits
that no one keeps on board ship to make a full uniform... }

{ and What PinHead has decided that women should wear
the white 'cracker jacks' issue? Get REAL! What ever
happened to Decent Wholesome Family Oriented Naval Traditions!}

2. "This is your Rifle, This Is Your Gun, One is for Fighting
and one is for FUN." 

This is a MOST important lesson for a lot of young males 
who have some confusion about the Nature of DickSizeWars.

I have yet to meet any of the Female Vets who are 
confused about the difference between arms and their Penis.

Maybe they do not teach that in women's boot camp?

ciao
drieux

ps: recently I thought it would save some money if I filled
in the trench for our new phone lines... and I have concluded
that in God's Divine Purpose - the next time I hear the 
order: "Dig In and Hold." I will get on the phone and call
a contractor....


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Don't Just Rock the Vote
Kick OUT THE JAMS!
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: The Politics Of Appeasement
Organization: my opinions only
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 23:15:11 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.183741.8930@u.washington.edu>
gwangung@byron.u.washington.edu (Roger Tang) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.171051.21225@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> jrmo@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (joseph.r.moore) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct6.202425.22247@u.washington.edu> gwangung@byron.u.washington.edu (Roger Tang) writes:

>	The point is that in the 1960s, civil rights legislation supposedly
>mandated equal treatment. However, violators evaded the spirit of the
>law and STILL treated people in a discriminatory manner.  Affirmative action
>was a result of court action to FORCE these non-compliant violators to
>follow the spirit of the law. In other words, EXPECTING people to treat
>everybody equally didn't work before; why would it work now?

If the building I'm in catches fire, and I'm unconscious from smoke
inhalation, I want a firefighter who is able to lift my 200-lb carcass
and carry it quickly to safety.  I don't care if that firefighter is
white, black, yellow, red, male, female, American, European, African,
or Martian.  (Actually, I'd probably prefer a Martian who can teleport
me to safety instantaneously :-)  Unfortunately, AA requires that the
numbers of members of various groups hired be proportional to their
numbers in the population at large, and therefore sometimes prevents
the most qualified candidates from being hired.

>	Can you devise a less restrictive way of achieving equality?

What equality are you looking for?  Equality of opportunity or
equality of result?  Those of us who believe in freedom prefer the
former.

>	This isn't a black and white area. You are balancing discrimination
>on a variety of groups.  

I don't want to balance discrimination, I want to eliminate it.
Period.  (Except, of course, discrimination on the basis of ability to
do the job, which seems to be what some people really want to
eliminate.)

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Xref: sparky soc.women:17708 soc.men:17716
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: An Old Male Fantasy that needs to pass
Date: 14 Oct 92 13:25:52 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

rivero@mdcbbs.com (Michael Rivero) writes:
] 
]   The figures are much higher for WW2, especially in the Pacific. The Japanese,
] towards the end of the war, established the "Special Southern Unit" for
] the island defensive campeigns. These soldiers, preferring their Gunto swords
] over their more conventional firearms enjoyed an 8 to 1 kill ratio. Much
] of the reputation for the Japanese sword in WW2 came from this unit.
] Using a sword is a matter of physical strength. Not a bayonet technically,
] but a weapon requiring physical strength.

I see your Gunto, and Raise a Quick Radio Call for air support....

]   And bayonets aside, there is still the basic requirement that a soldier
] carry a lot of field equipment over long distances when the mechanized
] transportation is unavailable. That requires a lot of strength.

Funny, all across the Third World Women seem to have
no problems hauling, and fetching....

]   The point I wanted to make was that once mechanical support is gone,
] women make less effective soldiers because they can (on the average) 
] fight less and carry less. If they want to fight that's just fine, but
] they will suffer excessive losses compared to the men.

Thank you for maintaining a Romantic Vision.....

You will also remember the Grand Ability of the Banzai Charge,
and its Glorious Replication as the 'human wave' assault.


I will grant you that in the Last Gasp Desperation that
followed the Collapse of the Air Bridge into StalinGrad
that this did limit the Ammunition supply.....


I am deeply impressed that your commitment to the 
HOLD AT ALL COSTS mentality is Maintained not only
in the data of the Argument, but also in its form.

I will, none the less, as is consistent with my
argument, offer you terms of Surrender.

When You have reached the cases, as you have presented them
as clear and compelling arguments for why women should be
banned from combat arms, this is When the Decent thing to
do is Surrender your troops to avoid a Massacre.

Now, Shall we return to Reality?

Or do you wish to Mount Your big White charger and
seek that last Great Cavalry Charge?

ciao
drieux


ps: sorry buddy, its a professional call,
not a romantic vision for me....


-- 
Modern Day Problems:
In any case, don't give up, just type slower :-).
Chimo
Bob.
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
From: cindy@solan10.solan.unit.no (Cynthia Kandolf)
Subject: Re: An Old Male Fantasy that needs to pass
Organization: /home/ludviga/cindy/.organization
	<1992Oct14.132552.18589@wetware.com>
Date: 14 Oct 92 21:11:21

drieux writes:
>rivero@mdcbbs.com (Michael Rivero) writes:
>]   And bayonets aside, there is still the basic requirement that a
soldier
>] carry a lot of field equipment over long distances when the
mechanized
>] transportation is unavailable. That requires a lot of strength.
>
>Funny, all across the Third World Women seem to have
>no problems hauling, and fetching....

Anyone who thinks a woman can't manage a heavy load should try to
pick up a squirming three-year-old with one arm and a bag of groceries
with the other.

(Apologies to my mother, from whom i shamelessly stole the quote.)

-Cindy Kandolf
 cindy@solan.unit.no
 Trondheim, Norway

Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: DING! We have a New Winner....
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 06:20:29 GMT

martinjp@cs.washington.edu (John Martin) writes:
] 
[ interesting point that there are two 'standards' for jump school.]

] After jump school I was sent to Alaska.  I haven't ran across a female who
] would be able to deal being an infantryman in the Arctic environment.
] Carrying a 90+ pound rucksack plus weapon, ammo, and webgear, and moving
] through five feet of snow (on snowshoes) is definitely not the place for
] a woman.  

Missed the Ididerod Races Eh?

] War is one arena that cannot be massaged into a kinder gentler place to make
] it easier for women to compete.  Females in combat will not receive the 
] same types of concessions from the enemy that they expect in our workplace.  

So?

] Society is conditioned to expect male casualties, when daughters are being
] raped and killed in combat things will be different.


BINGO!!!!!!


Just like the 'play acting' you put forward about jump school.....

Now let us stop and ask:

Gee, what if we say:

"X is the Standard for MOS <Alpha/numeric string>
Irregardless of Genetalia!"

I take you back through your FantasyGram.

The winner of the Great over land race WAS A WOMAN
and she would have Eaten The lunch of the Big MAcho
types... and still be a femme.... 

so Sorry that you missed visiting alaska....

Combat is an Unpleasant place... and it is a LOT 
MORE unpleasant place when you are a civilian in 
the combat zone and things are going boom boom!

{we really does gotta exempt them women from
in-coming... they just will not be able to handle it....}

And last but NOT least, some folks who are a 
part of the training regime, are angst laden
about the thought that there will be casualties.....


And once again Males are considered NON_HUMAN Cannon Fodder.

Take About Copping to the Worst of the RadFemmiNazi
Bullshit attitudes......


But thank YOU for playing.


ciao
drieux

ps: participant the jordanian-palistinian games.....



-- 
Modern Day Problems:

ME? engage in Hyperbole?
I have rarely been more than a first Order Function!!!!
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
From: fedrick@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Kelvin W. Fedrick)
Subject: Re: The Politics Of Appeasement
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 00:28:42 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.181923.5528@javelin.sim.es.com> biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel) writes:
>No, no, NO! Breeding and genetics have absolutely nothing to do with
>determining individual abilities and preferences. They only affect
>characteristics that are absolutely value neutral, like skin color,
>Tay-Sachs disease, Rh factor, etc. To suggest that there may be any
>genetic factor in ability, orientation, or aptitude is offensive.
>There are simply no significant population differences between
>different racial or ethnic groups, and anyone who doubts this is
>a prejudiced bigot.
>
>Regards,
>       H. Biesel

Sorry H but this isn't quite correct. To the extent that genetics and
heredity affects physiology (such as musculature, composition of fast
and slow twitch muscle tissue, height, weight, body proportions etc..)
it *is* a significant factor in determining athletic ability. The mechanical
efficiency of a body of certain proportions is as I understand fairly
easy to model. Given a certain body, there's only so good you can ever
get at doing some particular atheletic task. There is ample documentation
of this it's just that you dont see it a lot because it is indeed a
controversial topic. A few months back there was an article in on of
the science magazines (Discover, Omni, or one of the others) discussing
this very topic. For instance the overwelming majority of world class long
distance runners are of W. African descent, while the majority of world
class sprinters are of E. African descent.  What there has been no evidence
for and ample evidence against is that heredity effects intelligence or
mental ability.

I say this all to point out that the real problem here that makes this such
a controversial topic is that all to often, black athelete's who achieve
have there achievements trivialized (intentionally or unintintionally by
individuals who just aren't thinking) by attributing it soley to genetics.
Black athelete's who achieve are 'natural atheletes' while white atheletes
are characterized as 'hard working' as if the black athelete got something
for free and didn't have to work for it. This is what is offensive. Back
when blacks were first breaking into the very integrated world of professional
and olympic sports they were compared to animals by jealous, insecure, bigots
who didn't want them there. This sensitivity stems to a great extent directly
from these early problems in my opinion.

-kelvin