HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Date: 5 Jan 93 06:36:29 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: soc.men,alt.feminism
Organization: The Scorpions Nest

In article <1993Jan4.181737.1401@speedy.aero.org> 
nadel@attatash.aero.org (Miriam Nadel) writes:
>In article <726043390@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:

>>2) Men are under more pressure to be successful in work; extra
>>   pressure can kill men younger.

>Except that the studies of occupational stress have shown that women
>suffer from more work-related stress than men.  

How do you measure "stress"?
Is it some hard data like death rates, or soft data of "how it feels"?

>Stress is primarily tied to lack of control over your job.  
>In most offices, the employee under the highest stress is the secretary.  

I think that lack of control over what important to you is what
really causes stress.  Quite a few secretaries take their work
quite easy, you know.

>Not to mention the stress of juggling family and career.

Men, of course, have no such pressures...

>Women in male dominated fields don't show any increase in heart disease.

Can you give a reference?
BTW Did they compare women who are as successful as men,
or women who work in similar jobs?

>>3) Men are under pressure to take more risky works.

>This would affect work-related injuries, not longevity disease.  Nobody
>questions that there is a higher death rate due to occupational accident
>against men and nobody attributes this to biology.

Some work-related illnesses just shorten your life.  E.g.: some 
chemicals, coal dust, extended exposer to sun light and radiation 
can cause cancer.  Using your body to move too heavy things on a
regular basis is also not that healthy.

Are you sure that you have never heard about all of that?

>>4) Older women have more money than older men and therefore they
>>   have access to better medical care.

>Older women in general have less money than older men.  

Older widows have the largest concentration of wealth...

>>5) There is more public assistance to women than men, and therefore
>>   poor women get better medical care.

>AFDC has nothing to do with medical care.  Poor women often don't get any
>medical care.

I claim that women get more public help in their health care.
Do you claim that it is not true?

>Miriam Nadel

Hillel                                    gazit@cs.duke.edu

"Personally, I don't think raising a child as a single parent
is much of a burden." -- James G Keegan Jr
Xref: sparky soc.men:22430 alt.feminism:6960
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Date: 8 Jan 1993 23:38:31 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

nadel@attatash.aero.org (Miriam Nadel) writes:

>The only area in which women get more public help in health care is a 
>handful of maternity programs.  The only impact of this on longevity is
>that our maternal mortality rate is not as bad as that of third world
>countries.  

Nor as good as most industrialized nations.
-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
From: julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas)
Subject: Re: Mysogynist Bullshit
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 16:05:59 GMT

In article <725976367@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.171309.17092@llyene.jpl.nasa.gov> 
>julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas) writes:
>
>>I think it's exactly that -- women have to be twice as sick to be taken
>>seriously.  Of course, once you're that ill treatment is much harder
>>and takes longer.  
>
>So how comes that men, on average, die 7 years younger?
>
>Anyway, while your theory makes a lot of sense, if one just ignores
>reality, here is a piece of reality from CBS News, 1/1/1993

Take a look at what I said and read the article I read.  The study,
reported in Science News, concluded that women died more often and
had more complications from heart surgery because they were not 
treated as soon as men with similar problems.  

>
>#It is like so many other over crowded county health care clinics
>#you see the same faces full of anxiety need and fatigue.
>#
>#The people who can not pay, who don't have insurance.
>#
>#What make Lee(sp?) county different is
>#the faces you don't see - men and old people.
>#Pregnant women, mothers and dependent children are seen.
>#All others are been turned away,
>#unless they were patients hear before they new policy became effective.
>#Practically speaking health care rationing is a fact in a lot of places
>#but in some Florida counties now they made it official that
>#all patients are not to be considered equal.
>#
>#Some state officials call it
>#The Titanic model, women and children first.
>
>(Note that mothers are seen, but not fathers...)

This is wrong.  I never said women should get top priority.
But neither should men get top priority.
>
>(Note also that women have the world records in swimming for the longest
>time (more body fat), but the law is "women and children first...")

I don't agree with this philosophy.  Tossing this in here is
a red herring.

Julie
DISCLAIMER:  All opinions here belong to my cat and no one else
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: pcrayne@halcyon.com (Peter C. Crayne)
Subject: Re: A few facts about circumcision
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 10:32:15 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.053049.16500@netcom.com> lile@netcom.com (Lile Elam) writes:
>Reminds me of a Dr. Zeus story about the creatures who had stars
>on their stumics and the ones that didn't. They were the same 
>except for the stars but they treated each other as if they were
>from different planets.

Ah, you mean the Star-bellied Sneeches! In the book, a salesman came
around with a machine that could add or remove stars from sneeches'
bellies. The non-starred sneeches all had stars added. The Original
starred sneeches then had thiers removed in order to distinguish them
from the lowly sneeches. This goes on and on until none of them remember
what they started out as.
This seems a tad unlikely for circumcisions. :-)

-Pete

Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
From: chuckies@cs.mcgill.ca (Charles J. Savoie)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: "Reverse" Discrimination (was Re: Mysogynist Bullshit)
Date: 9 Jan 93 21:40:23 GMT
Organization: SOCS - McGill University, Montreal, Canada

In article <michael.726527935@glia> michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael) writes:
>In <C0Iwru.nI@cs.mcgill.ca> chuckies@cs.mcgill.ca (Charles J. Savoie) writes:
>
>>1) Somewhere in the average person's head is a pattern of synapses which
>>   equates: SEXISM = BAD.  Put "reverse" in front of it and you get:
>>   		reverse(SEXISM) = reverse(BAD)
>>				= GOOD
>>   I'm not suggesting that people actually think this way... but I'm
>>   almost certain that by putting "reverse" in front of a Bad Thing(tm),
>>   you make the "reverse" thing seem at least "not as bad", perhaps
>>   on a subconscious level...  Just a thought.
>
>Interesting thought, but there is an error in the math.
>
>	 Let SEXISM = BAD
>	 Note the fact that: reverse(SEXISM) = SEXISM

No, I don't agree.  If you heard someone say "...and we want to reverse
sexism in our community..." you wouldn't take it to mean they want sexism
to continue, but in the opposite direction.  So therefore reverse(SEXISM)
!= SEXISM.  Obviously, if you have in your head that reverse sexism is
still sexism, fine; but the point still holds that by putting "reverse"
in front of sexism it seems like this is an "odd", "special case" of
sexism...  Ever wonder WHY people call it reverse discrimination?  The
obvious answer is: to trivialize it.

I don't see how my opinions on the term "reverse discrimination"
are directly related to my opinions on affirmative action, but I'll
answer to the rest of your post anyway. :-)

>The only problem is that if one applies affirmative action to combat
>discrimination, it must be noted that this is a long term solution.
>In the short term some reverse discrimination could happen.  However
>if we look at the discrimination occurring for both sexes, and the
>total is reduced, then I can live with it.  Also if it leads to a
>future with less sexual discrimination, then I'm even satisfied with
>it.

Why not simply end ALL discrimination based on sex right away?  This
would have the short term effect of having NO DISCRIMINATION, and
the long term effect of having equality between the sexes.  Either
way, the short term and long term effects are the same, except nobody
gets discriminated against, ever.  The end DOES NOT justify the means.

>In the short term some reverse discrimination could happen.

Affirmative action is, by definition, discrimination.  What you said is
an understatement!

>    Michael Stanley (michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu)

Charles

-- 

,.. .  . .  . ,.. . . ... ,.. ,..   =====================================
|   |--| |  | |   |<   |  |-  `-.   Charles Savoie  chuckies@cs.mcgill.ca
`'' '  ' `''' `'' ' ` ''' `'' '''   =====================================
From: Darrell.Cadwallader@f363.n363.z1.fidonet.org (Darrell Cadwallader)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: shaving
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 93 18:45:00 PDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:363/363 - <Orlando Super Syst, Orlando FL

rfs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (richard.f.j.soyack) writes:
 
> In article <BzpwtE.HrJ@encore.com> aaldrich@encore.com (Al Aldrich)
> writes:
>>As to why men shave.. I also have no clue. I have heard that most men
>>prefer the `clean' feeling of a shaved face.. is this really true, or
>>do we just conform to convention?
 
> I shave because I like the way it looks and feels.  I had
> beards but they annoyed me, now I have a mustache because I
> don't like shaving that area of my face and a mustache doesn't
> annoy me.
 
I refuse to spend money on shaving cream. I'd much rather rip the beard growth out with a pair of channel-lock[tm]s.
 
----
ARPA: Darrell.Cadwallader@f363.n363.z1.fidonet.org
UUCP: tarpit!tous!business!363!Darrell.Cadwallader
----
We've got provisions, and lots of beer, the
keyword is survival on the New Frontier....

--  
        Darrell Cadwallader  -  via FidoNet Node: 1:363/42
             UUCP:  -  ...tarpit!tous!business!363!Darrell.Cadwallader
             ARPA:  -  Darrell.Cadwallader@f363.n363.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
From: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Subject: Re: Mysogynist Bullshit
Originator: hillyard@tiger.msc.cornell.edu
Reply-To: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell-Materials-Science-Center
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 22:39:16 GMT

From article <michael.726529095@glia>, by michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael):
> In <1993Jan8.080905.5595@msc.cornell.edu> hillyard@msc.cornell.edu writes:
> 
>>From article <michael.726477571@glia>, by michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael):
>>[...]
>>> 
>>> How about ignore her or ask her to stop?  I don't think firing is
>>> necessary.
>>> 
>>> I can see it now.  She just won't stop advising me.  Its been going on
>>> for weeks.  I finally just gave up and just do what she says (yeah right).
>>> *laugh*
> 
>>Yeah, living with a nag.  Its so much fun.  I don't know anybody who's
>>blown up or capatulated when faced with the problem.
> 
> Was this a point?  If so, I don't see how it changes anything I said
> and I still stand by it.
> 
Was your point that having someone you live with constantly telling you 
something is easily ignored?  I disagree.  Stand by it if you like.

SEH
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.feminism
From: scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Steven M Casburn)
Subject: Re: Anita Hill Strikes Again
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 01:21:26 GMT

In article <jtf.21ys@adsp.sub.org> dtf@adsp.sub.org writes:
>It may be true that Kgosie Matthews is an arrogant jerk. He's been widely
>reported to be one. But even a jerk should have the right to confront his
>accusers.
>
> [...]

     The poster of this article did not mention that it was written by Mike 
Royko. Not only is it posted without permission; it's even posted without 
credit to the author! *Very* bad form...

                                        Steve
|
-- 
    Steve Casburn (scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu)

    Building of the new .sig in progress. Please be patient.
      Sorry for the inconvenience.
Xref: sparky soc.men:22439 alt.atheism:25464 alt.sex.wizards:4300
From: felipe@bongo.cc.utexas.edu
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.atheism,alt.sex.wizards
Subject: Re: A few facts about circumcision
Date: 8 Jan 93 14:22:25 GMT
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

Were any of you here a while back when someone came up with the paranoid
proposition (racist as well) that the jews in the US pushed the medical 
community with propaganda until circumcisions became common practice.  This
would make it harder for you to tell who was jewish and who was not by who
was circumcised, since before this not many non-jewish men were, seeing as
we didn't have a covenant with God as they do.  Therefore, if you couldn't tell,if there were to rise another Hitler to power, they couldn't sort out the men
since we would all be alike, genitally speaking of course.  What fanatics 
come up with sometimes is overwhelming! 
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
From: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Subject: Re: Mysogynist Bullshit
Originator: hillyard@tiger.msc.cornell.edu
Reply-To: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell-Materials-Science-Center
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 01:32:55 GMT

From article <1ifk1hINNcmk@titan.ucc.umass.edu>, by quilty@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Humberto Humbertoldi):
> In article <1993Jan6.205357.1745@msc.cornell.edu> hillyard@lynx.msc.cornell.edu.UUCP (Sean Edward Hillyard,F7 Clark,50649,) writes:
[...]

[First note that I'm not particularly worried about what Hillary does.
I'm quite willing to judge the Clinton administration by its policies
and not how they are decided.]

>>The difference is that the cabinet can always be fired.  What does Bill do
>>if he does not like the job his wife is doing?
> 
> Stop inviting her to cabinet meetings? She is, after all, only there
> by his invitation. Divorce her? I'm pretty sure they have no-fault
> divorce in D.C.  Not listen to her advise? I really don't see any
> disanalogy between Clinton's (Bill, that is) cabinet giving him
> advise, and his wife doing so.  What I really worry about is Benson
> giving Clinton advise -- and it is not going to be politically
> feasable to get rid of such a high stature cabinet member once the
> appointment is made.
> 	Besides, Hillary seems like she would be a better president
> than Bill, anyway.

Well, that opinion is obviously not shared by a lot of people.  You are
worried about Benson giving advice, they are worried about Hillary.  Both
seem quite legitimate concerns to me, and do not seem to be Hillary, or
women 'bashing'.

As far as a divorce, I'm not sure I would like the president of the United 
States to be having marital problems while in office--although who get
custody and the division of property would probably be of great interest to
the net.

SEH
Xref: sparky soc.men:22301 soc.women:22261 soc.couples:4554 soc.singles:35544
From: nin15b63@merrimack.edu (The Wolf)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,soc.couples,soc.singles
Subject: Re: How Strong Should a wo/man be?
Date: 6 Jan 93 21:02:36 GMT
Organization: Merrimack College, No. Andover, MA, USA


K. Roper <ROPERK@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes: 
>
>  Strong enough to admit that yes, women sweat, fart and belch.

One of my roommates in college went out with this girl -- nice girl -- who
would make wild love to him all night and then, in the morning, challenge him
to a farting contest (and win).  Now, I know what you're thinking: "How can *I*
meet a woman like that?".  You just don't place a personal ad asking for a SF
who likes sincere romance and gross bodily noises.  You have to be a special
kind of lucky to attract such a prize.  Peter was.  Imagine the bliss you would
feel as your woman would roll over to you and whisper, "I want us to be engaged
... in a farting contest."

Realize that out-farting Peter is no small task.  One day, a bunch of us were
enjoying elegant chinese cuisine at a local China Chef.  Matt, who was sitting
directly across from Peter, raised his finger to draw attention to the fact he
had something to add to our dinner conversation.  As he opened his mouth to
speak, he executed a belch which would later be determined by analysts to
measure 3.7 on the Richter scale.  Apparently, Peter was already prepared to 
rebutt (sic) his point.  Before the last reverberation had even escaped Matt's
mouth, Peter countered "OH YEAH?!", and, without missing a beat, threw up his
right leg, and blasted the kind of fart that would have sent Wyle E. Coyote
back to the drawing board.  It would later be determined by analysts to be
totally disgusting.  We all completely lost it, assuming we ever had it.  My
friend, Barry, had fried rice coming out of his noses.  The dialogue had flown
so smoothly that I patiently waited to see if Matt had anything to add.  A
family of 5 got up to leave, though one of their kids walked over to ask Peter
for his autograph first.  It was a magic moment.

So, the answer to the question in the subject line is: strong enough to stand
up for his convictions; strong enough to attract the kind of woman he wants;
strong enough to bench-press at least 50 pounds -- with his penis (oops, that's
another thread on really effective pick-up lines); strong enough clear the
patrons out of a small fast-food joint.  Come to think of it, the place was
closed by the board of health shortly thereafter, so I guess you wouldn't want
to be *that* strong. 
--
 Andy Harrington                      | nin15b63@merrimack.edu
 Computer Geek                        | aharrington@ldbvax.lotus.com
 Merrimack College, North Andover, MA | I'm too sexy for this network.
From: starbuck@galaxy.ucr.edu (starbuck)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: UTNE READER - summary of male/female articles (Jan/Feb, '92)
Keywords: UTNE, men, women,
Date: 7 Jan 93 01:06:29 GMT
Organization: University of California, Riverside

Mark,

   Thank you for taking the time to post your summary of the
UTNE READER.   

starbuck

Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:00:24 GMT

In <1i4ul0INNjf6@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:

>forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu (Eric Forbis ) writes:

>>In article <1h8fq5INNono@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>>We were discussing father notification of a woman's pregnancy
>>>in order to allow him to claim the child should the woman choose
>>>to give that child up for adoption.  My position is that the
>>>birth of the child is already a matter of public record on 
>>>which the father can easily follow up (eg, by writing to the
>>>county recorder).  Thus there is no need for legislation 
>>>mandating "paternal notification".  Moreover, notification
>>>of the woman's pregnancy (as distinct from the *birth* of the
>>>child) is a violation of the woman's right to privacy.

>>highly mobile and people relocate frequently. Notifying a local government 
>>where the father will likely never find the record is hardly making it 
>>"public" in any meaningful sense-- but that's what you want, no?

>>Notification of pregnancy is not a violation of the mother's right to 
>>privacy. Rights end where others begin; a pregnancy exists in part because 
>>of the other, and when fatherhood is the issue, that "other" certainly has 
>>the right to know. 

>Would you be satisfied with paternal notification of the child's birth?
>I would have no problem with that with regards to privacy considerations,
>since the birth is already a matter of the public record.  (I have problems
>with requiring additional governmental paperwork, but that is not an 
>direct inequity issue.)  However, requiring a woman to notify anyone of 
>her pregnancy is a violation of her privacy.

However, in the scenario above - should the mother wish to put the
child up for adoption - surely the father should be given first
refusal. I cannot see how this violates her privacy.

Of course, during the days when I traveled a lot and spent some
time in bars, I don't recall anyone exchanging business cards,
if anything the *thing to do* was to use an alias. :-/

It was kind of amusing to watch, but kind of sad too. I wonder
just how some of those ladies would have notified the father?
Or how the fathers would ever have known they were fathers (some
for the second time since they had families at home). It's a
pretty sad old world, isn't it.

REB
>-- 

>                                                --  Michal
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Of course there's no reason!  

Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
From: gerg@netcom.com (Greg Andrews)
Subject: Re: How Strong Should a Man Be? and RESPECT!
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 07:49:29 GMT

K. Roper <ROPERK@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>
>  Strong enough to admit that yes, women sweat, fart and belch.
>

*I* have no problem admitting that.  It's my *SO* who steadfastly
rejects the idea she could ever do such things...

-- 
:::::::::::::::::::  Greg Andrews  gerg@netcom.com  :::::::::::::::::::
It has just been discovered that research causes cancer in rats.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Xref: sparky soc.men:22372 alt.feminism:6916
From: michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Mysogynist Bullshit
Date: 8 Jan 93 07:29:47 GMT
Organization: University of Washington
NNTP-Posting-Host: glia.biostr.washington.edu

In <1993Jan7.013255.6170@msc.cornell.edu> hillyard@msc.cornell.edu writes:

>As far as a divorce, I'm not sure I would like the president of the United 
>States to be having marital problems while in office--although who get
>custody and the division of property would probably be of great interest to
>the net.

Fascinating.  Now someone is assuming that Clinton's wife will give
Clinton advice.  The advice won't be taken, and then marital problems
will ensue.  My aren't we constructing a whole future scenario.  Lets
get real here.  Don't you think you are stretching things just a little?
*laugh*

Still, our country survived and prospered (except for the deficit which
may have helped pay for the prospering) for two presidential terms
under an idiot for a president.  If we can survive that, I hardly think
the first president married to a strong woman with a real degree is
going to kill us (well perhaps there was another one like this.  but I
don't recall him).

Who knows.  Maybe this presidential term will go a ways towards calming
some of the paranoic fears some men seem to have out there about strong
women.

    Michael Stanley (michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu)
Newsgroups: soc.men,misc.legal,ba.singles,soc.singles,soc.women