HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: x73rl@ll.mit.edu ( Rick LaFave)
Subject: Re: Back Again To (Un)Father - NOT!
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 14:23:36 GMT

In article <168CDA23B.SURGDM@mizzou1.missouri.edu> 
news@mont.cs.missouri.edu respondes:
|
|In article <1992Dec30.151008.16056@ll.mit.edu>
|x73rl@ll.mit.edu ( Rick LaFave) writes:
| 
|> 2) If you believe that women are underpaid and/or underemployed (WRT men),
|     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|>then odds are the actual $$ amout that she would pay him is less than
|>the actual $$ he would pay her, if she had instead exercised her choice
|>to raise the child herself, and sought support from him.  (Support is
|>generally a specific fraction of gross income).
| 
| 
|Your first line is completely gratuitous. Regardless of anyone's beliefs
|concerning women's employment status, the parent who makes the most money
|pays the most support. Say that a man and a woman make 40K/ year and 20K/year
|respectively. Their combined income is 60K. The court will decide that
|,under normal circumstances, the support of a child requires a certain %
|of that income- let's say 10%, or $6000 a year, or about $500 a month. The
|man is making 2/3s of the combined income, so his 'share' of the support
|is also 2/3s, or ~$335.00. The woman is responsible for the remaining 1/3.
|If the woman supplies a higher share of the combined income than the man,
|she is responsible for the greater share of the child support.
| 

  I have no problems with your comments.  My wording was unclear 
on purpose.  By using the word 'believe' I was trying to avoid making any 
statements that could have been interpreted as fact regarding womens
pay and employment status WRT men.  This would be inviting flames from both 
sides, on womens employment status, which is not the direction I wanted to 
go with this.  
  IMO women (statistically) earn less money that their spouses/SOs, although
this is probably debatable.  So I think at this point we are both saying 
the same thing.?.

  But now that the can of worms is opened;
  Suppose both man and women have engineering degrees (lets say 2 BSs).
The happy couple decides that she will stay home raising kids, and he'll
go merrily to his place of employment every day.  Things turn sour - they 
divorce.  Do you think he should be obliged to pay 100% as she was not 
gainfully employed at the time of divorce, or do you believe she should be 
held 'available for work' because of her degree, and have imputed income?
(This probably belongs in alt.child-support but I get 'shoulder tapped'
when I cross-post so...  (just being cautious Muffy!))
  Just a note on the way the system works here.  The more 'successful'
he is at his job (reflectd in higher pay) the more he is penalized at 
divorce time through support.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: DPIROT@vm.ucs.UAlberta.CA
Subject: The White Feather Campaign
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 03:53:48 GMT

Several 'womens groups' have been reported in the media as
expressing outrage at the media reports of systematized rape camps
in Bosnia, and are demanding military intervention in Bosnia to
bring and end to the practice.
As has already been pointed out in several postings, the reports
are similar to the stories that were circulated in 1914, during the
German invasion of Belgium about nuns being raped and babies
bayonetted by 'the Boche', that were used to stir up war sentiment
and encourage young men to volunteer for military service, stories
that were later found to be fictitious.
It is likely, judging from the lack of confirming evidence and from
the opinions of aid workers in Bosnia that the reports are greatly
exaggerated, that the stories have been made up in order to stir up
sympathy for a Balkan war. Recently the Bosnian government accused
General Lewis MacKenzie, the Canadian former commander of the UN
peace keeping forces, of raping and killing four Bosnian girls.
This is the sort of nonsense that is coming out of that part of the
world.
However, even if there were some truth to the allegations, what
seems to be happening is that the feminists are prepared to
sacrifice the lives of young American men in order to protect the
virtue of women. This seems to me to be a major step backward.
What will we see next - feminists in the street handing out white
feathers to young men to shame them into going to war to defend
womankind from the Boche?
Don't fall for it, guys.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: I'm So Confused
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 18:11:04 GMT

In article <michael.724959352@glia> michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael) writes:
>In <1992Dec20.165650.21611@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec16.033321.23119@news.cs.brandeis.edu> st890674@pip.cc.brandeis.edu writes:
>>>Having a man find you attractive should not entail being sexually harassed.  
>>>"Nice tits (ass, etc.) is not an example of someone trying to tell you you're
>>>attractive, but trying to tell you "I have power over you, to demean you
>>>and humiliate you."  
>
>>This absolutely does not follow.
>
>Well actually it does.  Certainly one can compliment another's body
>in a good way.  But done in an inappropriate way it can certainly mean
>what st890674 above said.

The distinction is between "can" and 'does'. 
 
>For one, if you talk to a relative stranger, that is considered
>inappropriate.  In that case, its rude and would qualify as what this
>person said.

There is a HELL of a difference between being rude, and 'trying to tell 
you "I have power over you, to demean you and humiliate you"'. They are
not equivalant.
 
>Another example is your choice of words.  Even with close friends, using
>the wrong words (which depends on the people involved) can be rude and
>mean what the person above suggested.

You have dealt with rudeness, but you have yet to show that this equates
to a claim of "I have power over you, to demean you and humiliate you".
 
>So, it DOES follow -- just not necesarily in all cases.  Probably it
>only follows in 90% of the cases? :)

If it follows conditionally (which you did not actually show) then it does
not "follow". If it follows, it is always the case.
 
>    Michael Stanley (michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu)



Rich

payner@netcom.com
From: levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: The BEM Test
Date: 29 Dec 92 17:38:36 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman) writes:

>In article <BzzoAJ.Kwo@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore 
>Levine) writes:
>> The fact that I found this test, suggests that it was in use some time
>> in the past ten years. I am curious when and how it was devised, whether
>> it's still in use, and for what clients it's intended.

>If I recall my Psych of Women correctly, the Inventory was devised by feminist
>psychologist Dr. Sandra Bem.  The result of the inventory are plotted on a
>"masculine"/"feminine" cartesian axes set, as follows:

>Quadrant I (high masculine/high feminine): subject is culturally androgynous
>        II (low  "        /high "       ): "       "  "          feminine
>       III (low  "        /low  "       ): "       "  "          neuter (?)
>        IV (hihg "        /low  "       ): "       "  "          masculine

>If it is given to anyone other than people taking psych of women courses, I
>don't know.  Implicit in the test is the understanding that these are cultural
>definitions, not eternal truths.

>Daniel B. Holzman         

Let me note that the "cultural definitions" seem to apply very badly
to Eastern European Jewish culture. They would probably apply *only*
to Anglo-Saxon culture.
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Violence
Keywords: n
Date: 22 Dec 92 04:44:53 GMT
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

asgard@plx.com (J.R. Stoner) writes:
>jean@cs.cornell.edu (Jean M. Petrosino) writes:

>>He continues:
> ^^
 
>Telling assumption.
 
>Petrosino and assumes without basis that since I do not with agree with
>Petrosino's argument that I must be "one of _them_" therefore my arguments
>can be discarded out of hand.

Oh, wow.  *Weighty* argument there J.R.  

Who gives a shit what sex you are?  If it's a big issue with you that
people get it right, why not use a gender identifier?  (Mr. or Ms. if
your name isn't gendered.)

In any case, if she did dismiss your arguments out of hand, 
let's see evidence.  ("He continues" is really not convincing
evidence of misandry in my book.)

rini

-And I thought the trend was to flame feminists for using gender
neutral pronouns.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women
From: llatwood@unix.amherst.edu (Laura Atwood)
Subject: Re: Men & Women, "Males & Females"
Followup-To: alt.feminism,soc.women
Organization: Amherst College
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 07:28:51 GMT

At my college, "female" is often used as a neutral term when the speaker 
thinks that someone is too old/mature to be called a "girl" but does not yet
have all the responsibilities of "adulthood" and therefore can't really be 
called a "woman."  

L.
From: michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Women DOCTORS
Date: 31 Dec 92 22:10:25 GMT
Organization: University of Washington
NNTP-Posting-Host: glia.biostr.washington.edu

In <92361.095942MIWHC@CUNYVM.BITNET> <MIWHC@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:

>     I am looking for any sort of data/statistics on how patients feel about
>women doctors. As yet, I have found nothing. I get the impression that both
>older men and women prefer men doctors, middle-aged men prefer men doctors,
>middle-aged women prefer women doctors and both younger men and younger
>women prefer women doctors.

Finding a good doctor can sometimes be a difficult task.  If one
immediately elminates half the sex, then one reduces the pool of
good doctors he/she can choose from.  Frankly I don't see what the
doctor's sex has to do with it.  I've been examined by men and women
in the medical profession and feel equally comfortable with both.

So I guess my answer is, "About the same as I feel about men doctors."

    Michael Stanley (michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu)
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:6332 soc.men:21563 soc.women:21748
From: biow@cs.umd.edu (Christopher Biow)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Date: 21 Dec 92 15:14:04 GMT
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742

In article <168C1CB92.SURGDM@mizzou1.missouri.edu> Diane writes:
>In article <1992Dec18.184824.10383@rat.csc.calpoly.edu>
>dgross@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu (Dave Gross) writes:

>>        "We men" are surrounded by violence from our circumcision in infancy
>>(no anaesthesia, thank you) to being bullied in elementary school; from trying
>>out for the football team in high school to registering for the draft; from
>>being several times more likely than our sisters to be murdered to watching
>>boxing on television; from visiting Arlington National Cemetery to running our
>>fingers along the Vietnam War Memorial.

>Just a few questions/answers:

>1) Who are the major proponents of circumcision?
>- Doctors, the mojority of which are still men.
                ^^^^
[spelling flame on the origins of the word "mojo" supressed]

>[rest deleted--men are to blame for the violence in our society,
>because they run it]

If all faults of our society can be laid at the feet of the 
"men who run it", then so should all of its virtues. To compare
relative virtues, we need several examples of societies run by 
women. As this is, as yet, a vacuous case, there isn't much 
point in this argument. It is unfalsifiable.

(FWIW, I find our society a remarkable improvement over barbarism. 
Especially for women. Those who disagree are invited to
move to the still "free" areas of Somalia. You'll be able to 
enjoy the fruits of the pristine state of human existence, at least until 
those awful, violent, male Marine infantry arrive.)


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: Re: False allegations of abuse / Chesler's book...
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 04:30:07 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

I wonder if we could have the reference, instead of all
this wool-gathering about what might or might not be legal
if someone said something or didn't say something? 

-- 

 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
From: sproles@pine.circa.ufl.edu (SPROLES)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: RE: BEM test
Keywords: BEM, Psychology
Date: 30 Dec 92 22:05:52 GMT
Reply-To: sproles@pine.circa.ufl.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Florida  (ufl.edu)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4


Regarding the BEM test here is a bio and a reference for you.

From"Sex and Gender" edited by Phillip Shaver and Clyde Hendrick, Review of
Personality and Social Psychology #7, Sage., 1987, p251 Chapter 10 is "Gender
Schema Theory and the Romantic Tradition" by Sandra Lipsitz Bem.

Sandra Lipsitz Bem is professor of Psychology and Women's studies at Cornell,
has also been faculty at Carnegie-Mellon and Stanford. Ph.D from U. Mich, 1968.
Research on sex typing and androgyny won the APA's Early Career award in 1976.

Interesting stuff.
Judy Sproles

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: a thought on men and
X-To: LOREN I. PETRICH
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 01:28:00 GMT

lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes...
LIP>         Besides oral sex, one can also consider mutual masturbation,
LIP> which makes it _very_ hard to spread STD's, and also ... anal sex.

LIP>         A lot of homophobes snicker over gay men performing this last
LIP> act, but the same strictures don't seem to be applied to the
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
LIP> heterosexual version of this act.
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Not entirely, Loren (not a flame)...  I am *not* heterosexist, but *I* do
have a problem with myself doing this sort of thing as a heterosexual act.  I
won't go any further in explaining why I have a problem with it, suffice to
say that it's a matter of personal choice, rather than heterosexism/homophobia.

So indeed, even if one is not heterosexist, one can *still* have problems
with *this* act.  Conceivably though, I do grant your point that there are
probably a lot of heterosexists who *do* do this in their heterosexual
relationships, but me... not heterosexist, but I *still* wouldn't do it.

(Okay, call me a prude now... :-) )

(BTW, I am *not* a prude, and considering that I have just said that, you
have probably guessed my reasons...if not, you can always ask me in e-mail).

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Happiness is your favourite program moving to Windows(?!)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Choosing Dangerous Relationships (was: How to Protect Women)
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 23:03:38 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.223942.7940@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>Yes, it is indeed an interesting situation. On the one hand, there are
>large numbers of "safe" men available, but these are ususally of
>relatively little interest to women. 


	Precise observation.  Most men learn early on that
	women tell them that they want one thing (skin of
	the same flesh, one soul, all of that crap) but 
	chase and react positively to another (the uncaring
	self-centered "bad guy" who is sexy, the flawed hero,
	all of that crap.)

>to a woman. My advocacy of an aggressive style is NOT because I am
>attached to such a style _per se_, but rather that feminist rhetoric
>has misled many men into thinking that the way to win a woman's
>attention is to be a "nice guy," when in fact this is the fastest
>way to turn her off completely. Therefore, men must learn to modify
>their behavior to give women more of what they *really do* want; 


	I disagree.  Men don't owe women jack in terms of behavior
	modification.  You are who you are, and if others don't like it,
	well, tough.  Certainly it is not reasonable to advocate that
	*men* should change their psyches to please women.


>You and I can both agree that we'd prefer a saner world, where the
>likelihood of violence in a man was NOT seen as an attractive feature.
>But "things are the way they are" because there are so many women who
>react like Robin Givens (who is so beautiful that she could obviously
>have had her pick of practically ANY available man). On the day that
>women spurn boxers and football players for philosophers, once-violent
>men will begin to study Aristotle. Until that day, both men and women
>will be living in the world of Dangerous Relationships.


	Exactly.  We all form our behaviors by observing "what works". 
	The ideas preached by most feminists do not, and yet they wonder
	why most men ignore them.


-- 
	Blaming society for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
	         ---  Boycott == censorship == cowardice  ---
	Do I even need to point out that my views do not represent
	those of my employer, institution or relations?
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:6689 soc.men:21965 soc.women:21991
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Date: 31 Dec 92 23:42:12 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

#It's really strange how enviornmental factors are claimed to be -major-
#limiting factors in womens lives, but it is unforgivable heresay to
#consider enviornmental factors when men are involved.

In article <168CED207.SURGDM@mizzou1.missouri.edu> 
news@mont.cs.missouri.edu writes:

>Could you come up with a few good examples? Assertion is not proof.

1) The divorce system discriminates against men, and in most cases
   women win.  I suggested changes in the laws that will give men
   a better chance and got a long lecture from feminists (especially
   Adrienne) saying that the laws are just fine, men just have to
   try a little harder.

2) The presentation of men as more violence, and claims that the
   environmental factors are not that important.  The fact that
   there are *many* more men in jail does not show (according to
   the feminists "testosterone poisoning" theories) any discrimination
   against men, it just shows the violent nature of men...  
   (Just be careful never to present a similar theory about blacks...)

3) Men live, on average, 10% less than women.  The feminist theory
   about that is that women die because they lousy medical treatment, 
   but men's bodies just break apart in a younger age.  
   No environmental factors can change the clear conclusion.

>Diane

Hillel                                     gazit@cs.duke.edu

"Indeed, one of the earliest forms of male bonding must have
been the gang rape of one woman by a band of marauding men."
                                 -- ("Against Our Will", Susan Brownmiller)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael)
Subject: Re: I'm So Confused
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 17:35:52 GMT

In <1992Dec20.165650.21611@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.033321.23119@news.cs.brandeis.edu> st890674@pip.cc.brandeis.edu writes:
>>Having a man find you attractive should not entail being sexually harassed.  
>>"Nice tits (ass, etc.) is not an example of someone trying to tell you you're
>>attractive, but trying to tell you "I have power over you, to demean you
>>and humiliate you."  

>This absolutely does not follow.

Well actually it does.  Certainly one can compliment another's body
in a good way.  But done in an inappropriate way it can certainly mean
what st890674 above said.

For one, if you talk to a relative stranger, that is considered
inappropriate.  In that case, its rude and would qualify as what this
person said.

Another example is your choice of words.  Even with close friends, using
the wrong words (which depends on the people involved) can be rude and
mean what the person above suggested.

So, it DOES follow -- just not necesarily in all cases.  Probably it
only follows in 90% of the cases? :)

    Michael Stanley (michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: jean@cs.cornell.edu (Jean M. Petrosino)
Subject: Cheerleaders and their Salaries
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Distribution: ]usa
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 15:00:40 GMT


sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:

>In article <1992Dec16.232603.3881@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

>>      Women in football? Always as cheerleaders, who are usually
>>scantily clad sex objects. They are not really important to the game,
>>it must be said. I personally have nothing against exhibitionism in
>>principle, just against exploitation.

>Yes, a well-paid female actress (for that is what these are), having
>an exciting, fast-paced life and undoubtedly dozens of highly attractive
>suitors, is *exploited* something fierce. We've got to make them stop
>doing this, for their own good.

-This is the same argument that Jack Benny used, to defend his treatment
-of Rochester. He said, "Rochester laughs all the way to the bank."

-Lenore Levine
-(Mail) End of article 6259 (of 6360)--what next? [npq]


Just so you all know, professional cheerleaders might make all of $50 for each
 game they perform at - well-paid they are not.
From: jean@cs.cornell.edu (Jean M. Petrosino)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Blaming the Victim
Date: 21 Dec 92 15:43:59 GMT
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853

JP> This is to Mr. J. Dunphy:
		Just as the women you seem to keep involving yourself with,
 you are walking time-bomb looking for a place to happen.

RP>If this had happened to a woman, what you are doing would be called -blaming
   the victim-. And further, you are saying that things like this will happen
   in the future, and they will also be his fault.  

This is a complete misinterpretation of my statement.  Pardon me for being so
thoroughly disturbed at this man's complete and utter hatred of women. It made
me VERY uncomfortable since he made it quite clear that ALL WOMEN should pay
for these few women's terrible deeds. 
You also haven't considered the fact that if I was in Mr. Dunphy's position, 
and had had so many terrible relationships with the opposite sex, I would begin
to question my own judgement.  Since he seems to continue to get into these 
situations, he should question the type of woman he is attracted to so 'this 
won't happen in the future' and he can be assured that if it does, that it 
will not be his fault.  Women change their behavior in this way all the time.
If this is blaming the victim, then I am apparently ready
to apply this not only to men, but to women and to myself.  
He has been a victim, and for that I am sorry.

When someone publicly expresses hatred for all people of your kind, Mr. Payner,
 I hope you can respond in a less callous manner.
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:6751 soc.women:22066 soc.men:22049