HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore)
Subject: Re: Men Are Not Cost Effective
Reply-To: shore@tc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 16:51:51 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.111239.29887@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>, nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (nathan engle) writes:
> In article <4591@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> jxxl@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil writes:
> >  A Napa author has filed another salvo in the battle between the sexes,
> 
>     This may reveal my ignorance (what, again?), but what is a "Napa
> author"? Is "Napa" an acronym for something? From the context it sounds
> like a radical feminist organization.

Napa is a place.

What I'd like to know is why Nathan thought soc.women was
an appropriate place for the original posting.  Do you find
me or other feminists wandering into soc.men and using, say,
Oscar Valdes' or Michael Rivero's or Clayton Cramer's or
Daniel J. Karnes' writings to suggest that men are stupid?
You do not, because we know that these idiots are atypical.
So why, exactly, has this been posted to soc.women? 
-- 
       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
From: dirk@iastate.edu (Drik Tengly)
Subject: Re: A Woman's Right to Choose
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 07:54:17 GMT

In <RBcaJB1w164w@netlink.cts.com> jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:

> 
>How do people feel about making the choice of biological father
>legally the woman's choice without the knowledge or consent of
>the husband?
> 

   Nope. Doesn't work for me. It sounds like a form of fraud. The husband
is supporting a child he thinks is his. ( if she (the wife) became pregnant
w/o his knowledge. If hee.) If she gets pregnant by another man w/his knowledge
but not consent, he should feel no responsibility towards this child. Actually,
if I was the male in question, I'd file for divorce...*shrug*


>--                    
>INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
>UUCP:   ...!nosc!ryptyde!netlink!jim
>NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 435-6181

-- 
-----
Ask me how ISU is censoring | "I dunno man. She    | I represent no-one
my usenet....               | just bought me a     | but me. Unless you
                            | salad"-Modern Method | pay me.
From: stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Vanilla Sex in Canada (was Re: Japanese Women's Lib)
Date: 14 Apr 92 13:30:09 GMT
Distribution: na

Stewart Schultz writes

[various deletia]

+ Yep.  Canada is the little sister of the U.S., fuzzy and nice.
+ Yet, women here are horrifically oppressed...yet it's the most
+ livable nation in the world...yet...

At the rate Canda is going, not for long...not for long...

K'Char
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: nadel@aero.org (M.H. Nadel)
Subject: Re: Maternity leave
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 17:40:04 GMT

In article <2704@unisql.UUCP> wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie) writes:
>
>	The average salary here is around 30K.  For us to pay 1 person's
>salary for 1 year would require each of us to contribute $1000.  My $100
>figure seems to be very optimistic...

But that's not what anyone is proposing.  Typical disability leave for
maternity is 6 weeks.  The proposals for (non-disability related) parental
leave are all talking about unpaid leave. 

And nobody has proposed applying these laws to small businesses.

The Wall Street Journal recently reported on a study which showed that
the cost of maternity leave is significantly less than the cost of hiring
and training replacement workers.

I suppose that you're perfectly willing not to have provisions for disability
leave and a guaranteed job on return for other conditions (which can't be
planned around in advance so easily)?  What's going to happen when you're
out for 4 months because of the heart attack caused by overwork?

Miriam Nadel
-- 
"UCLA's fans are so totally mellow, nine out of every 10 have no idea where in
the world Duke University is located, or whether it was endowed by John Wayne
or named after Patty."     - Mike Downey
nadel@aerospace.aero.org
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct
From: charters@madhaus.utcs.utoronto.ca (Jim Charters)
Subject: Re: Men Are Not Cost Effective
Organization: University of Toronto Computing Services
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 17:57:10 GMT

In article <53798@olivea.atc.olivetti.com> jan@oas.olivetti.com writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.153752.20990@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (nathan engle) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr7.200503.9860@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@umbc4.umbc.edu 
>>(Alex S. Crain) writes:
>>>	I thought that the artical was classically conservative - try and
>>>show how a certain section of society is defined by the criminal class,
>>>and attempt to punish that section based on that relationship. I wonder if
>>>she considers herself pro-family?
>>
>>    Strange, I thought that the article was classically extremist - 
>>first outline a problem in simplistic terms, and then use statistics to
>>try and blame all instances of the problem on some unrelated and probably
>>innocent third party. I wonder if she's in favor of a negotiated compromise
>>about who should pay in light of the fact that she benefits from locking
>>up these dangerous criminals just as much as the rest of us.
>
>Are y'all serious?
>
>Face it -- if you want to "simplify" about white men, you're extremist, if
>you want to "simplify" about black people or women or anybody else, you're 
>conservative.
>
>If you consider pregnancy-related absences an abnormal expense in business, 
>you're conservative, if you consider alcoholism or heart-attack absences an 
>abnormal expense in business, you're extremist.  
>
>Time is the only factor in deciding which label to apply.
>
> 

Well, like I always say, there's two kinds of people in the world.
Those who put people in categories, and those who don't ;-)


-- 
#include <standard_disclaimer>
Jim Charters
Geophysicist & Chief Computer Flunkey / University of Toronto Geology
Toronto / Ont. / CANADA / M5S 3B1 / charters@quartz.geology.utoronto.ca
From: cnh5730@maraba.tamu.edu (Charles Herrick)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Yes, it is racism, Robert (was: Mixed Couples -= but it's not racism =-
Date: 10 Apr 92 19:56:25 GMT

Robert Sheaffer writes
> In article <12075@tamsun.tamu.edu> cnh5730@maraba.tamu.edu (Charles  
Herrick) writes:
> > For a while I was dating a Korean female (actually, I  
> >never date American females anymore, but that's another story :-), and  
I  
> >never ceased to be amazed at how puposefully-rude people were willing  
to  
> >be. 

> I have't been in that situation, but it doesn't surprise me at all.
> However, this has NOTHING to do with racism!

Sorry Robert. You missed the point (yet again, sigh).

If you had been in that situation (does it ever cross your little mind  
that NOT having been in a situation puts you at a very specific deficit  
and that perhaps you have absolutely no idea about what you're talking?)  
you would realize that the animosity comes straight from dislike of  
someone who is Asian and oriental is a race, and therefore it IS racism.

get a freaking clue, and soon. you're really completely lost in space.
From: stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Smelling The Roses
Date: 7 Apr 92 23:06:17 GMT
Distribution: na

wharfie writes

+ "Well, I got screwed so you will too.  Better quit while you're ahead and
+ go work at Burger King so you can spend more time with your family" bullshit.
+ What's the point?  That since Bill got the shaft 25 years ago on a government
+ contract I should quit my job since my dreams can never come true and anyway
+ I have to work too hard to make them happen? Feh.

Reminds me of a story my father tells from time to time.

Seems there was an old farmer, who had worked hard all his life, and had
made a tidy little sum. His friends urged him to spend it on himself, that
his offspring would probably waste it. His reply?

"If they have as much fun blowing it as I had making it, then I won't 
complain an iota".

To each his own, eh?

Oh, yea...my condolences to Wharfie on landing in Waco...

K'Char
From: cnh5730@maraba.tamu.edu (Charles Herrick)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Pay for it yourself (was: financial planning and more maternity leave stuff
Date: 13 Apr 92 19:40:55 GMT

In article <7560095@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> mort@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Jeff  
Mortensen) writes:
I see no problem with putting in a few bucks
$ to back a company that has a day care center, or a prenatal policy  
to 
$ help employees.  It would be another incentive for good employees.

It would be another incentive for good employees of a specific  
sub-social group, namely child-bearing ones.

You are not alone in agreeing to offer a particular kind of welfare  
to employees who have chosen this type of lifestyle.

However, there are others who do NOT choose to subsidize people who  
have chosen this lifestyle, and their positions are at least as valid  
as yours.

Therefore, I propose that you get together with people who want a  
corporate day care center or a prenatal help policy or parental leave  
and 
	PAY FOR IT YOURSELVES
and
	DON'T ASK OTHER PEOPLE TO PAY FOR YOUR CHOICES.

OK?
From: maslak@unix.SRI.COM (Valerie Maslak)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Smelling The Roses (was Re: Companies can afford it, right?)
Date: 9 Apr 92 23:47:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: unix.34146
Organization: SRI International, Menlo Park, California


Wes thinks that pesepctive somes with age. Maybe so, age and
experience, anyway.

There's one facet of wharfie's arguments thast has been missed so
far, but that many friends of mine are all too aware of: 4 out of 5
startups fail.

So for everyone who has a company that even stays in business, four
others find a boarded up door with a sheriff's sale notice on it.
As for hitting the big bucks by going public and making those stock
options worth something...odds are not in your favor, folks.
Factor that in.

Hey, I've had friends who were with Visicorp, remember
them? Gone. Folks came in one morning and someone met them at the
door to tell them there were two lists posted, a big one and a small
one. If your name was on the small list you were to talk with
so-and-so about shutdown arrangements. If your name was on the big list, you
were to take your stuff and proceed directly out the door,
ostensibly to the unemployment office. When some people went back to
their offices to collect their belongings, many of the desks and
chairs were already gone. They used their stock options for toilet
paper.

These folks then went to another unnamed startup that went bellyup.
Never went public. More toilet paper.

 Where were the presidents of these two companies? Did they stay
around to thank folks for all their hard work? Forget it.

Hey, I've got one friend who's put his family through
FOUR failed startups. Every one was going to be THE one.
He went without a salary for long stretches, mortgaged his house,
did all the stuff that sounds so romantic when you hear it from the
successful ones. What did it get him?

He's been divorced once, almost divorced from wife #2
twice...kids in therapy.... Finally decided that
being a working professional consultant with a happy family was
better than chasing stock options.

So, wharfie, you choose to do it, fine, it's your life.
But to moan and complain because everyone doesn't think
that your goals and values are the only worthy ones...
nah, won't fly. There's something to be said for putting time and
energy into a family and into relationships. I've been a child :-) and
I've had two children. If our society doesn't start valuing
child-raising and allocate resources to it, we'll end up with
serial killers and drive-by shootings and gang rapes
in Central Park being the norm...

Valerie Maslak
From: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Japanese Women's Lib
Date: 16 Apr 92 00:33:37 GMT
Reply-To: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Organization: Florida State University, but I don't speak for them

To quote Ghandi out of context:
I think it would be a very good idea.

-EMP
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: A neat story, and a question.
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 03:50:44 GMT

chungkuo@ais.org (Shawn FitzGerald) writes:

>I work in a computer lab at a community college in Michigan. Whiloe working,
>a group of users and another consultant were engaged in conversation with
>me. Topics included masturbation, sex, feminism, and religion. A user
>overheard some thing I said, most of which she found offensive.
[...]

Enclosed are some references. An an employee, your on-the-job speech
can pretty heavily restricted even by a government employeer.  On
campus speech of students is generally much freer.

- Carl

ANNOTATED REFERENCES

(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)

=================
law/meritor-v-vinson
=================
This is Meritor Savings Bank FSB v. Vinson. This is the Supreme Court
decision that recognized illegal sexual harassment in the form of a
"hostile environment" at the work place. It is referenced in the two
university speech code decisions.

=================
law/doe-v-u-of-michigan
=================
This is Doe v. University of Michigan. In this widely referenced
decision, the district judge down struck the University's rules
against discriminatory harassment because the rules were found to be too
broad and too vague.

=================
law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
=================
The full text of UWM POST v. U. of Wisconsin. This recent district
court ruling goes into detail about the difference between protected
offensive expression and illegal harassment. It even mentions email.

It concludes: "The founding fathers of this nation produced a
remarkable document in the Constitution but it was ratified only with
the promise of the Bill of Rights.  The First Amendment is central to
our concept of freedom.  The God-given "unalienable rights" that the
infant nation rallied to in the Declaration of Independence can be
preserved only if their application is rigorously analyzed.

The problems of bigotry and discrimination sought to be addressed here
are real and truly corrosive of the educational environment.  But
freedom of speech is almost absolute in our land and the only
restriction the fighting words doctrine can abide is that based on the
fear of violent reaction.  Content-based prohibitions such as that in
the UW Rule, however well intended, simply cannot survive the
screening which our Constitution demands."


=================
=================

To get these documents by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s):

  send caf-law meritor-v-vinson
  send caf-law doe-v-u-of-michigan
  send caf-law uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin

The files are also available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.4) as file(s):
  pub/academic/law/meritor-v-vinson
  pub/academic/law/doe-v-u-of-michigan
  pub/academic/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From: pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Companies can afford it, right?
Date: 7 Apr 92 20:23:37 GMT
Organization: (Ha!)

In article <1992Apr7.153513.18368@tc.cornell.edu> bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.133217.25957@news.nd.edu> slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:
>>If you feel comfortable in advocating a position that would make 
>>employment more difficult for a woman to hold, then I suppose there 
>>is nothing I can say to change your mind.
>
>What makes you think that just because you have a NEED for a comfortable 
>job, than somebody else SHOULD provide it for you, at his expense ?

Well, of course someone could provide it to your at HER expense :-)

But seriously, if, as a society, we make it not in the economic
interests of intelligent, ambitious, educated & hardworking women
who want lives that extend beyond childcare and and housework to
maintain those lives _and_ have children, then fewer of them are
going to do so over the long haul. That will mean that a higher
proportion of children will be brought up in households containing
someone who does not fit with all of the above. Now it's possible
that the only difference will be "want lives that extend beyond
childcare" but I wouldn't bet on it. That in turn means that the
next generation will grow up under imnsho on average sub-optimal
conditions. Even if you have no particular sympathy for the children
of the coming generation(s), you should realize that they are the
ones to whom we are going to be handing over the world we make, including
whatever tangible and intangible things we may build and whatever
savings we may accumulate, so I would darn well rather they were
qualified to take good care of same.

paul
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: kranitz@mr.med.ge.com (Wes Kranitz 4-6857 MRCE)
Subject: Re: Smelling The Roses (was Re: Companies can afford it, right?)
Organization: GE Medical Systems
	<2652@unisql.UUCP> <34028@unix.SRI.COM>
	<1992Apr5.170654.12024@midway.uchicago.edu>
	<KRANITZ.92Apr8162134@dspalley.mr.med.ge.com> <2702@unisql.UUCP>
Date: 9 Apr 92 13:23:27

HaHaHaHa.....It's how we feel, not how old we are :-) :-)

Really though, Wharfie. I'm glad that you work for a company that's an
exception rather than the rule. This will be my last post about this also.
I wouldn't call it sour-grapes. I've just seen to much of this crap. And
from what I've heard from others, it's quite common. I venture to say its
probably the way a majority of businesses act. Oh, Well....

Just a note. I couldn't be happier. I own a couple of my own businesses and
do consulting work. As a matter of fact, a good friend of mine and I have
incorporated a music publishing and record company in New York. Should be
a lot of fun. It will definately be a people company as I believe people
should be a company's greatest asset. ALl my companies are run that way.

Take care,

Wes
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.culture.canada
From: schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz)
Subject: Re: Vanilla Sex in Canada (was Re: Japanese Women's Lib)
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 22:28:19 GMT

In article <_#yj2lj.barry@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>
>	Now, now, Stewart, credit where credit is due. Canada has always
>been more inclined to censorship than the US, and Dworkin and MacKinnon's
>proposals may well have been based on a Canadian model in the first place.
>
>	Canada, you see, has long had anti-hate-speech laws, and these
>provided the legal fulcrum on which the sexual censorship gets its
>leverage: the notion that it's possible to slander large and vaguely
>defined groups of people like Jews, blacks or women. To a lawyer, it's
>all the same. The camel's nose has been in Canada's tent a long time.

Oh sure, the Canadian soil was ripe for Dworkin.  But my point
is that the degradation clause was almost entirely her offspring
(well, along with MacKinnon and Susan Griffin).  The main "evidence"
in the original case was a pile of feminist literature dominated
by these three.  It's not hard to find Canadian legal scholars who
speak approvingly of Dworkin/MacKinnon/Griffin; e.g., Dr. Kathleen
Lahy at Queen's.

The hate law is entirely separate from the obscenity law, which was
fairly straightforward before Dworkin's _Pornography_ came along,
a few years after which the waters were hopelessly muddied by this
vague "degrading to women" concept, which legitimizes all sorts of
censorship.  Of course, anti-woman hate speech has always been covered
under the hate laws; but up until now there has been no written gender
bias in the obscenity law.

It amazes me that the core idea in _Pornography_ managed to get
enshrined in federal law.  Acknowledging Canada's lust for censorship
doesn't make me any happier about its ongoing love affair with
Dworkin.

-S. Schultz
Xref: sparky soc.men:8583 soc.women:9112 soc.singles:11493
From: cwinkler@oregon.uoregon.edu (Celia Winkler)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Women for Nerdy White Males?
Date: 17 Apr 92 19:26:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: oregon.17APR199212260966
Organization: University of Oregon
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <RXuDJB1w164w@netlink.cts.com>, jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes...

>We'll sit around resisting our instincts to approach females on a 
>sexual basis, because that's what Duty calls us to do.  The same 
>girl/whores who tell us that is our Duty, then take off and fuck 
      ******
>some guy who totally ignores the call to Duty, or has psychically 
>figured out exactly when it is permissible to ignore it.  
> 
..
>It is no wonder at all that nerdy white males might decide to
>cast off all their internal bull-whips and seek a culture in which
>the women are not only not being hypocritical whores, but in which
                                               ******
>the women actually appreciate the sense of moral integrity, technical
>creativity and adherence to Duty exhibited by nerdy white males.  The
>fact there just might be such women and that they might not only not
>resent, but may even support the MASCULINITY of the nerdy white males 
>must be seen as an irresistable temptation to many.

Once again, please define your usage of the term, "whore," and explain
why you use it in this context.

Dunno, but it seems like you got burned once or twice.  Sorry for
your misfortune.  But that's life, honey.  Happens to almost all of
us.  

Please don't use words inappropriately.  Unless you're using the
term in the context of selling sex, you are not using it correctly. 
Indeed, the term is probably more appropriate for both men and women 
who marry for security, who trade sex for something else, whether it's
money or a clean house or a kid.  Perhaps it is better to drop the
term altogether as one of condemnation, since we all trade something
for something else at some point in our lives.

Get out of your dream world.  Your elaborate theoretical constructs
only obscure the experience of living.

cw
Xref: sparky soc.men:8508 soc.women:9020 talk.abortion:15499
From: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: pro-choice == pro-(womens' only) choice?
Date: 16 Apr 92 00:40:04 GMT
Reply-To: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: Florida State University, but I don't speak for them

In article <1992Apr11.182317.5404@vax.oxford.ac.uk> annan@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
>In Oxford, a few years ago, a female student got pregnant. She wanted an
>abortion, her boyfriend did not because of his christian beliefs (mind you, if
>he was really a christian, what was he doing sleeping with her anyway? But
>that's not the point). He went to court to try to prevent the abortion. He
>lost. Fair?

Sure, I think so.  She should have veto power over her pregnancy.  What is
wrong is when she has the child and makes him pay one-quarter of his pre-
tax income over the next twenty-two years, *plus* all medical expenses and one-
half of schooling expenses, for a child that he may not even get a chance to 
see. 

-EMP