HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Subject: Re: Observations from male studentnt
Reply-To: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena, CA
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 00:53:52 GMT

zen@death.corp.sun.com (d) writes:
>  Why so?  You seem to be saying that if there is a known risk involved,
>then the owner is responsible.  Well, there is a risk in just *owning* a
>car, no matter *where* you live.  So by your logic, then there is shared
>responsibility for all cars stolen -- is this what you think?  

Yes. Everyone shares the responsibility for giving credence to the concept 
of "ownership", hence things can be "stolen". (It's out there, but true)

>what is *enough* caution to relieve you of responsibility?  

ABSOLUTELY NONE. Nothing relieves one of responsibility. Period. 

>  By similar arguments, you can say that women are responsible for being
>raped, by wearing provocative clothing, walking through bad
>neighborhoods, etc.  I think that leads to pretty destructive logic...

Not really. If a rapist has no target, how can he (or she) rape?

I'm not saying that the woman has COMPLETE and TOTAL responsibiity
for some whacked out fool who wants to force his sexuality on others...
but I won't absolve her of any responsibility either. 

-- 
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov       dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov         ...usc!elroy!dxh

Honest (adj.) - Someone who is secretly regarded by everyone as an enemy.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Value of Womens' Lives (was: _Backlash_)
From: moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (moz [chris moseley])
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 22:03:41 GMT
 <MUFFY.92Sep25114657@remarque.berkeley.edu> <Bv5HH0.58s@cs.psu.edu>
Organization: Electrical Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand

I actually think that in the interests of equalising things, (ie affirmative
action), we should make only women eligable for the draft, and the military.
That way, in the next war (Kuwait II - the election), we can start equalising
the numbers of casualties.

(does the USA still have a law saying you can be killed for treason if you
evade the draft??)

:^) moz
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:1976 soc.men:17286 alt.sex:31745
From: mrmike@michelotti.ae.ge.com ("Mr. Mike" Passaretti)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Choice for men: moving beyond anti-feminism
Date: 3 Oct 92 16:15:06 GMT
Reply-To: Mike Passaretti <passaretti@crd.ge.com>
Organization: GE Aircraft Engines


# In message <m8FwRB8w164w@cellar.org>, 
# rogue@cellar.org (Rachel McGregor) writes:

rachel> Diaphragms ARE intrauterine devices, and your cited
rachel> prevention rates are too high.  Foam used with no
rachel> barier method is far from sufficient.  Sponges,
rachel> diaphragms, and caps are used in conjunction with
rachel> spermicidal foams and lubricants.  Actually, the best
rachel> combination to use (according to one of my doctors) is
rachel> a condom with foam.

If your doctor is the one who told you diaphragms are
intrauterine, I suggest you find a new doctor.  Last time I
studied human physiology, the cervix was still the _outside_
end of the uterus.  Then again, maybe they redesigned the
female anatomy while I wasn't looking...  

NB: The rates are usually quoted for barier[sic] methods when
used _as recommended_, which includes spermicides in many
cases.

rachel>            
rachel>Rachel McGregor (rogue@cellar.org)  research contractor, modem junkie
rachel>---------------------------------------------------------------------
rachel>The Cellar BBS: 215/654-9184: quickly becoming the Net's most infamous site
rachel>If you don't believe that, look for rogue, darling, richh, techie, or revpk

Well, if they're all as well informed as you. I can well
imagine that you've developed quite a reputation...

                                                        - MM
-- 
I do not think that selfishness is any more inherent in men
than it is in humans.                      -- Muffy Barkocy
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (Rini Clarkberg)
Subject: Pornography Victims' Compensation Act
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 23:19:14 GMT

I don't know if everyone knows about this bill or not, but on June 25th
the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee approved by 7-6 a bill that would
permit suits for economic damages against the producers, distributers,
and exhibitors of obscene material if a plaintiff can show that the
sexually explicit material was "a substantial cause" of a sexual offense.

(Will we next see an analogous bill permitting Reagan or Hinkley to
sue Scorcese for the creation of Taxi Driver?)

Anyway, I just thought I'd post the closing paragraph from the Ad Hoc
Committee of Feminists for Free Expression (which includes Nora Ephron,
Judy Blume, Adrienne Rich, Betty Friedan, Anne Bernays and 180 other
active feminists):

"Women do not require 'protection' from explicitly sexual materials.  It
is no goal of feminism to restrict individiual choices or to stamp out
sexual imagery.  Though some women and men may have this on their platform,
they represent only themselves.  Women are as varied as any citizens of a
democracy; there is no agreement or feminist code as to what images are
distasteful or even sexist.  It is the right and responsibility of each
woman to read, view, or produce the sexual material she chooses without the
intervention of the state 'for her own good.'  We believe genuine feminism
encourages individuals to makes these choices for themselves.  This is the
great benefit of being feminists in a free society."

I think it is a rather nice statement.

rini

Just for the record, the yea votes were Charles Grassley (Iowa), Strom
Thurmond (South Carolina), Orrin Hatch (Utah), Alan Simpson (Wyoming),
Hank Brown (Colorado), Howell Heflin (Alabama), and Dennis DeConcini (AZ).
Arlen Specter conspiciously left the room at vote time.  (Woah -- 
flashbacks to the Anita Hill thing or what?)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women,soc.men,alt.politics.correct
From: boyc5031@mach1.wlu.ca (jim boyce)
Subject: The Beauty Myth 
Summary: Sources and Opinions Sought
Organization: Wilfrid Laurier University
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 04:59:13 GMT
Keywords: beauty myth

I am a masters student in the Religion and Culture Department at
Wilfrid Laurier University (Waterloo, Ontario) and am doing an
analysis of The Beauty Myth by Naomi Wolf. I will be examing her
empirical evidence as well her personal observations and would
appreciate some help in finding sources. At this point, I have
gathered about twenty book reviews from magazines and journals,
most of them being one to two pages in length. Does anyone know
of a more intensive study of this book?
   As well, I would appreciate any personal opinions you might
have on the book.

sincerely,
j.boyce
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder)
Subject: Re: Freshman
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 19:10:36 GMT

>>I can call them anything I want.  If I want a positive response from
>>someone I will use a term that is not deragatory.  Besides, nigger,
>>wop, spic ,kike,wasp, cracker, are not always offensive.

>Of course you can.  You may want to note that many people find
>"generic" words such as freshmen derogatory, though.  Your insistence
>that we keep using them may be considered to be as insulting as your
>calling an Italian-American a wop.

Wait a second, I thought the basis for the objection to words like 'freshman'
is that they are not generic.  On the other hand, I consider racial slurs far 
from 'generic terms'.  Talk about arguing in circles.

JerkfaceJeffy  :^]
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:1757 soc.men:17065
From: walkerr@yaya.WPI.EDU (Robert A Walker)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Why put ruffles on condoms?
Date: 29 Sep 92 15:40:38 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
NNTP-Posting-Host: yaya.wpi.edu

In article <1992Sep28.190133.26633@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>
>- one woman reported liking them a great deal.  
>- two women reported feeling them and disliking it.
>- six women reported no difference.
>
>So, I still wonder -- if the ribs aren't there for the women....  who
>are they there for?  :)  Or perhaps it's the 1/9th of women who can tell
>who are buying them...?
>
The ribs are for idiots like me who bought them once and got a "well i can't 
feel a difference".  One major difference i did notice was that it felt like
i was wearing a sock.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Subject: Re: Value of Womens' Lives (was: _Backlash_)
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 14:53:11 GMT
Organization: QQQCLC

In article <1992Sep25.001508.3182@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>	For putting on oxygen masks, all the airliner instructions
>I've ever seen state to put one on a little kid before putting on one
>for oneself. This would seem to be a case of "weakest first", though
>there is no "women and children first" anywhere.

	I don't recall airline instructions specifically, but I
_thought_ the rule was to put your own mask on first, the logic being
that you must remain able to function. Putting the mask on your child
second won't hurt the child - too little time sacrificed to do damage -
but passing out occurs more quickly, and you're better able to give
continuing assistance to children and others when you're conscious.

						Kayembee
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (Rini Clarkberg)
Subject: Re: Freshman
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 14:41:10 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.130209.12821@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> j
linder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder) writes:
 
>No one has been able to demonstrate the problem with 'fresh-
>man', so why should we use some slang term?

One thing wrong with it is that a fair share of those to whom
it refers don't like the term. 

I mean, why should I call you Jeff?  What's wrong with me calling
you "JerkfaceJeffy"?  

Why shouldn't we call blacks "niggers"?  Or Italians "wops"?   
Because a fair share of them consider it offensive.  Isn't that
enough?

rini

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Subject: Re: Observations from male studentnt
Reply-To: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena, CA
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 23:44:27 GMT

muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>Okay, so, this would seem to say that if you (Dave) are walking down the
>street and someone rapes you, it is partially your fault.  

You got it.

>How much is it your fault?  

Enough so that I can learn from it. 

>What do you, personally, feel that you are responsible for doing to 
>avoid this?  

Being awake, alive, and aware. This means knowing where I am at all 
times, and my relationship to my surroundings. 

In other words, I don't go into a gay biker bar wearing just a speedo...

>If you were wearing a tight pair of jeans, for example, should the 
>rapist get a reduced sentence or be set free because you were 
>"provoking" the rape?
>[and more questions]

There are a LOT of assumptions in this question which prevent me from
answering it to your satisfaction. Please rephrase this question. 

Anyone wearing a particular manner of dress is responsible for being 
*aware* of their effect upon the people surrounding them. They are not 
necessarily responsible for the effect itself, but they are responsible 
for knowing how that effect will affect them.

Thus, if I go to work wearing nothing...I am aware that most people will
react with shock. It is not my responsibility that most people react with
shock at a nude body, but I must be responsible for knowing how their reaction
might affect my work (possibly getting fired). 

Thus, if a "responsible" woman goes to work in a short, tight skirt and 
skimpy blouse, they will be aware that most males will react with sexual
desire. It is not her responsibility that most males react with sexual
desire at an attractive woman attractively clad, but it is her responsibility
to know how that reaction will affect her work (possily getting whistled at,
leered at, or picked up on). 
-- 
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov       dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov         ...usc!elroy!dxh

    In a meadow, the King shot an arrow at a deer but missed.  "Bravo!" a
    Fool shouted. The King became angry and snapped "So! You're making fun
         of me, eh? I am going to punish the life out of you!"
     "My word of praise was not for His Excellency, but for the deer."
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Childcare
Date: 2 Oct 92 21:16:32 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Oct2.134933.1@vms.cis.pitt.edu> tjw+@pitt.edu writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.105047.12112@leland.Stanford.EDU>, farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>
>> Librarians complain of children
>> coming from school to the public libraries because there's nowhere
>> else for them to go, thus the libraries act as babysitters.
>
>Recently, my spouse, who is a children's librarian, has found children left
>in the library by their parents who are attending classes or doing research
>in other parts of the library.  Often these very young children are left
>beyond closing time because the parent is unable to make it back to the
>library in time.
>
>Affordable child care in the United States is desperately needed.  The "stay
>at home" mom and the "working" dad are a relic of the 1950s.  Both parents
>need to work in a family today and the children are caught in the middle.
>
>If the Republican Party of the United States was truly interested in
>"Traditional Family Values", you would think that child care would be much
>higher on their list of priorities than a capital gains tax break.  Perhaps
>people are becoming tired of being "trickled down" upon!

Actually, no. The "Traditional Family Values" as I understand things
have the man working outside the home, and the woman working inside
the home, no daycare needed. And when needed, it is provided by 
Grandparents and relatives, or occasionally a babysitter.

This is not my view of a utopian society, just what I understand to
be "Traditional Family Values". 

>Terry
>-- 
>        INTERNET: tjw+@pitt.edu         BITNET: TJW@PITTVMS
>"Laugh while you can, Monkey Boy!"                        - Lord "John" Warfin
>"There can be only one!"                                  - The Highlander
>"There should have been only one. I want my money back!"  - Terry

Have you seen the commercials? Looks like they have made "Highlander" the
series.


Rich

payner@netcom.com
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: The 75% woman
Date: 6 Oct 92 00:24:53 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts) writes:


>What would the effect on society, culture and evolution be if women comprised
>75% of the population?

>	Another implication could be an increase in female infanticide until
>until the populations equalized.

No infanticide needed.  Babies would still come 50-50, and the M-F
ratio would balance itself out. 

						--  Michal
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil)
Subject: Re: The Pill
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 01:28:57 GMT

hans@Software.Mitel.COM (Hans Johnsen) writes:

>tjw+@pitt.edu writes:
>>BTW:  I heard on the ABC nightly news last night that women who have taken
>>the pill are less likely to develop ovarian cancer.  The longer one is on
>>the pill the greater the protection.

>I haven't seen a report on this yet, but was it 'develop', or 'die from'.
>Because the pill has an obvious advantage in that you are required to have
>an annual pap smear when on it. If the study says 'die from' and they did
>not control for this then the conclusion is not very useful.

Women who have taken the pill are less likely to develop ovarian cancer,
if I heard correctly.

>The reason I am skeptical is that I had always heard that the pill made
>ovarian cancer MORE likely. Or am I mistaken? Possibly this is the case
>(greater risk with the pill) with some other reproductive cancer?

Actually, the pill makes breast cancer more likely -- if a woman smokes and
depending upon her age -- but it makes ovarian cancer less likely.  Mostly
because, according to the study, the lack of ovulation gives the woman a
respite from certain hormones.

Of course, I only read the article in the newspaper.  Consult your doctor,
as always.  I have no medical knowledge whatsoever.

Sharon 
oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda (Was: Value of...)
Followup-To: alt.feminism,soc.men
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 92 03:14:08 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.214715.26119@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>In article <717917196@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>>Two weeks ago we had the following exchange in soc.men:
>>>In article <1992Sep6.101010.7218@morrow.stanford.edu> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>>>)And guess who wrote this:
>>>)
>>>)"I also think a male-only draft is profoundly anti-male.  Every man
>>>)drafted would have a 50 percent chance of not being (drafted) if women
>>>)were.  The male-only draft discriminates against men."
>>>)
>>>
>>>I give up.  Who wrote it and where did they write it?
>>
>>Catharine A. MacKinnon in _Feminism Unmodified_.

>>I don't think that even farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) will try
>>to defend such opinions in a non-moderated forum, so I wonder why
>>she tried to give us such false impression about MacKinnon?

(Sorry to use a response to your post to make a point.)

This is one of the reasons I have Gazit in a killfile.  We've all seen
those "man-hating" quotes by Brownmiller, Dworkin, and MacKinnon (most
of them taken out of context).  So, I decided to report an actual
quote by MacKinnon that shows maybe, just maybe she's not the crazy
some people make her out to be.  Gazit interprets that as trying to
give a false impression about MacKinnon.

Perhaps the world is a bit more complicated than Gazit would
like--MacKinnon may actually see a male-only draft as exactly she
writes, anti-male.  The horror!  A big bad man-hating feminist who
talks of anti-male discrimination and says it's wrong!  If MacKinnon
can throw you a curve, who can we trust?

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (moz [chris moseley])
Subject: Re: Daycare (was Re: Bias in Academia?)
Organization: Electrical Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 21:35:09 GMT

forest@cs.unca.edu (Forest Davenport) writes:
>moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (moz [chris moseley]) writes:
> >chpetk@gdr.bath.ac.uk (Toby Kelsey) writes:
> >>  [daycare]
> >> Yes.  It should be called that, if it is.  However parents
> >> are the best people to teach a young child and they should
> >> if they can.
> >
> >even illiterate, uneducated parents? What about abusive ones?
> >What about teenage parents? Or mentally handicapped parents?
> >
> >Education is `best' done by those with some aptitude for it,
> >and preferably some training as well IMHO.
> 
> 	Are you proposing some sort of parental aptitude test
> 	before one is "allowed" to become a parent?

no, more that there needs to be a recognition that parenting is a
learned ability, and that there is a place for professionals. Too
many people seem to think that ANY birth-parent is better than ANY
other adult when it comes to parenting the child.

The examples were cases where I think a clear case can be made for
fostering/ professional daycare for at least part of the childs
preschool life. My main point was that Toby seemed to be saying
that children should not be separated from their parents, if
the parents want to keep them. It also reminded me of some of
the more far out religious groups who want to teach their own
kids right through, but don't have the training or knowledge to
equip kids for interaction with the modern world.

Me, I personally favour extended families (whanau), having grown up
in/around them. As well, I prefer that children are taught in small
groups by someone who likes doing so, rather than lumped onto
one unfortunate who may or may not like children. Again, my
mother teaches 5 year olds and remedial reading, and working with
those kids gave me a new appreciation of how lucky I was. Trying
to help a kid who is 7 or 8 and cannot read at all, and has no
support from home is VERY hard.

moz
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:2028 alt.sex:31853 soc.men:17308
From: rs87+@andrew.cmu.edu (Rebecca Ann Stallings)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.sex,soc.men
Subject: Re: Choice for men: moving beyond anti-feminism
Date: 4 Oct 92 14:05:38 GMT
	<m8FwRB8w164w@cellar.org>
Organization: Sophomore, Architecture, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

>Diaphragms ARE intrauterine devices,
	Intrauterine means it goes *inside* the uterus.  A diaphragm is placed
*against* the uterus, in the top of the vagina.  That's why a woman can
insert and remove her own diaphragm safely.
	Rachel is right that a diaphragm isn't 97% effective, especially when
used by itself.  My doctor says it's about 85% *with* spermicide, 95%
with spermicide and a condom.
		---'Becca at Carnegie Mellon
From: kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts)
Subject: Re: The 75% woman
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 15:15:22 GMT

In <1992Oct5.042249.3014@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:

>I say that there would be good points and bad.  If women, making up
>75% of the population, would have comparable political power, certain
>conditions would be better for women (jobs, childcare, etc.).

But would women be able to obtain this comparable power?

>I think there would be an intense competition for men, women would
>share men in romantic/sexual relationships, or more women would
>discover their bisexuality.

>>	One of my lines of thought is that this would put women at an even
>>larger disadvantage.  A superficial glance at evolution and family units
>>could suggest that the remaining men would become even more valuable, 
>>increasing their negotiating ability in cultural and domestic
>agreements.

>I'm not sure this is true.  There seem to be situations in history
>where women were quite rare (the gold rush days here in California,
>when Australia was being settled, as examples) and women didn't seem
>to have any real increase in power.  Perhaps they had a wider, better
>choice of husbands, but that seems to have been it.

I don't believe the situations are symmetric though.  Since historically men
seem to create and then fill positions of power, I think this would allow them
to each share a bigger piece of the pie.  In the Gold Rush days, women just
became even more objectified in housewive roles.

>In fact, just the opposite might occur.  Men may become too precious a
>comodity to be left alone and may be rationed out to women.

>>	Finally, is there some critical threshold for the ratio of 
>>males:females, above which evolution and social needs would force cultures
>>where females have the primary dominant role?

>I don't know.  Homo sapiens is still a very young species, so it's
>hard to say how much an effect evolution has had so far.

I would put evolution as having about 100% of an effect on us.  What's up
for grab is how much culture has influenced us.

Ken
Newsgroups: alt.feminism