HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rons@hardy.u.washington.edu (Ronald Schoenberg)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: compromise (was Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Date: 9 Nov 92 17:19:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Nov9.171942.25226
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Nov6.220236.19291@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
>In article <1992Nov6.163937.5772@u.washington.edu> rons@hardy.u.washington.edu (Ronald Schoenberg) writes:
>)In article <7560136@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> erik@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Erik Lode) writes:
>)>  So, where do I sign up for the wealth that you claim is my birthright?
>)
>)Get an MBA from Stanford and join a large corporation.  Start a
>)company and work hard.  Marry the daughter of a wealthy man or be his
>)son.  There are lots of ways for a man to acquire control of wealth,
>)but almost no ways for a women to.
>
>Sorry, the data doesn't bear you out.  As I mentioned in my previous
>post, the tax return data show a slight favoritism towards men as
>far as 'wealtholding' goes, but nothing near what you suggest.
>
>The data in 'Statistical Abstracts', which I also looked up, shows that
>of the 'top wealthholders with gross assets of $500,000 or more',
>men held 2,162,692 million dollars, and women 1,604,014 million.
>This means women are about .74 of men - not equity, but certainly not
>as far off as you suggest.
>
>I lack the data to prove this, but my personal opinion that both the
>easiest and the most common way to achieve extreme  wealth is to inherit
>it...
>

Absolutely correct, the easiest way is to inherit it - you will notice
that that was on my list above.  This discussion group has reached a
sorry state, though, if it can't agree on the fact that men control
the wealth of this planet.  What is it you're trying to prove, it
can't be that women control the wealth because that is a little like
arguing that the earth is flat.  Are you trying to tell me that widows
in Florida clipping coupons and cashing trust fund checks control the
wealth of this country?  If you feel that women are truly controlling
wealth in this country then you should write a book and clue in the
economists and social scientists who would find such a conclusion
truly striking.
Xref: sparky soc.men:18963 soc.women:19182
From: frisinv@alleg.edu
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Smoking, Drinking, and SEX
Date: 9 Nov 92 19:44:36 GMT
Organization: Allegheny College


   We are doing a poll for a social science project on smoking, drinking  
and sex (what can I say, we're college students). 

1) What is your personal gender?
2) What brand of cigarettes do/did you smoke?
3) Was/Is it a light, menthol, 100s, etc?
4) Why do/did you use this brand (i.e. advertising, friends)
5) What form of alcohol do/did you usually drink (beer, wine, vodka, ...)?
6) What is/was your favorite brand?
7) Why do/did you use this brand?

Please email your responses to frisina@alleg.edu
This survey is time-dependent! Please HURRY!!!!
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.feminism
From: keithd@stallion.oz.au (Keith Duddy)
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Organization: Stallion Technologies
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 06:40:32 GMT

In <1992Nov11.052352.23646@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:

>In article <23764@galaxy.ucr.edu> starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu
>(starbuck) writes:

>>Sexism is a term that can be defined by the user.

>And is therefore meaningless, since it cannot be used to communicate.

Yeah that's an easy way out of it boys... it's got too many
meanings, so it's obviously an uncommunicable concept. What
bullshit. Does this stop debates about 'democracy' or 'love' or
almost any social or political phonomenon which is used with
varying meanings. Let's try stating our definitions and then
communicating about them.


Keith
---
\\\\\                                                                   /////
////                   keith duddy - slave to the rhythm                 \\\\
\\\  stallion technologies - 56 sylvan rd, toowong, qld 4066, australia   ///
//     ph              fx                 mail                 uunet       \\
\+61-7-870-4999  +61-7-371-8881  keithd@stallion.oz.au  uunet!staltec!keithd/

       ^^I write software for this company - not policy statements^^
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: Another One
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 18:22:47 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <1992Nov10.221839.29258@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu writes:

> In <1992Nov9.220927.9438@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com writes:
> [very long and extremely scary article on false child-abuse allegations related
> [to custody battles deleted.
> 
>   A similar case took place here in Texas.  The _Texas Monthly_ had a write-up
> about it.  The difference here is that it looks like the good guys won.  I'll
> try to find the article and post something about it tomorrow.

  Got it.  paraphrased without permission from November 1992 _Texas Monthly_:

  George Paouris, a former Greek Naval officer who moved to Texas about 2 years
ago.  He had married his now former wife Dolores in 1984.  divorce proceedings
began in 1991.  In May and October of that year, Dolores claimed that thier
daughter said George had kissed her genitals.  Despite the Dept. of Human 
Services being unable to determine if any abuse had occured, Dolores was event-
ually able to get a DA to show interview tapes to a grand jury and get an in-
dictment.  However, in an open court, the tapes were picked apart, and Dolores
was also shown to have many inconsistencies in her testimony.  Particularly
damning was her reaction after her daughter had been taped saying she had been
touched: Dolores jumped up and kissed the caseworker on the cheek -- pretty
unusual behavior in these situations.  Usually parents are *extremely* upset.
 Also there was the testimony from the escort service workers (these people 
keep an eye on the accused and child during visitation to insure nothing unto-
ward happens) who noted the daughter was very withdrawn at home, but happy 
with her father.

  Eventually, George was cleared, and awarded full custody of the child, with
visitation allowed to the mother.  There was no indication of any charges, 
civil or criminal, against the mother.

  There's a lot more, and _TM_ is pretty critical of how these investigations 
are done, IMO.  It is obviously the opinion of the reporter that this case was
cooked up entirely as a ploy for the mother to gain full custody of the little
girl.  If true as reported, it's pretty nasty stuff.


semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mike Levine: Triumph 		               *
********************************************************************************
Newsgroups: soc.men

	
	Heck Dave...

	all one would have needed to do is to visit 'The Wall' this past
	Veterans day, in order to see who's lives are valued more....
	Sure, we care about the guy's that went there and never returned,
	but the fact is we chose to send men, and 20 years later we still
	see men as the protectors, and women as those deserving protecion.

	It's only starting to change.... the protection of women is a very
	old practice...  like protecting children.  I doubt we will be
	able to shake it easily.

	-Mike-
Xref: sparky soc.men:18747 soc.women:18932 alt.abortion.inequity:4883 talk.abortion:46875 alt.feminism:3813
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: compromise (was Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Date: 6 Nov 92 16:54:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: cos.bob1.721068868
Distribution: na
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems

In <1992Nov5.203508.357@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> jrmo@volta.att.com (J.R.Moore) writes:

>In article <bob1.720985365@cos> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
>>In <1992Nov4.154804.1308@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> jrmo@volta.att.com (J.R.Moore) writes:
>>
>>
>>>The result would be two-fold.  Women would truly be guaranteed the right 
>>>choose for somewhere between 8 and 20 weeks.  Women who have not opted
				^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>to terminate pregnancy by default would have freely decided to carry
>>
>>[deletions galore]
>>
>>>Joe Moore
>>
>>Under this rule, I would be a batchelor today. When Florence and I
>>met, she was recently widowed. About 3-4 years before she noticed
>>a weight gain and consulted her doctor. Both her GY-OBN and the
>>operator of the sonogram maintained that she was pregnant. Her

Point of clarification - the sonogram operator maintained that
what she saw was a baby (her words), the doctor simply accepted
her word against Florence's denial.

>>husband knew better and demanded they operate. They removed
>>a 12-15 lb tumor. The doctor's conclusion afterward was that
>>another month would have been too late. However, it took her
>>husband's demands to get her on the table.
>>
>>Now, if any here wonder why I am pro-women's-rights, it may be
>>clearer to you. You seem to forget that they call it the
>>*practice* of medicine, and maybe one day they will get it
>>right.
>>
>>Sure, I get a little rabid at times in this group. Its mainly
>>when some young male puppy tries to pontificate on what women
>>should be allowed or not allowed. Then it starts me thinking
>>that I would not be sharing the joy, warmth, love, and passion
>>of this delightfull woman, and I can get just a little upset.
>>
>Re-read the deletions.  I asked for conclusive evidence.  A heartbeat

J.R., don't be so naive. The word of the sonogram operator would
probably be considered eveidence given the way most laws are
written. Regardless, it is still sticking our laws, noses, etc.
in places where they have no damn business.

>and perhaps also signs of viability (size, health, etc.)  Did the
>tumor have a heartbeat?  I wouldn't begin to tell anyone what they
>can or cannot do until they start imposing force on another person.

Wouldn't begin telling? Then just how do you interpret the rule you
stipulated above?

>And I think the guarantees of privacy dictates that conclusive 
>evidence be available.  And of course life threatening situations
>are always an exception.

>Joe "young male puppy" Moore

RE "old dog" B
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
From: jrmo@volta.att.com (J.R.Moore)
Subject: Re: compromise (was Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 20:35:08 GMT

In article <bob1.720985365@cos> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
>In <1992Nov4.154804.1308@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> jrmo@volta.att.com (J.R.Moore) writes:
>
>>It would be illegal to interfere with the privacy of women and their
>>doctors when no evidence of life or no evidence of sustainable life
>>existed in the woman.  Therefore women would be guaranteed the right 
>>to choose to terminate a pregnancy without any roadblocks.  And any
>>rights granted for any medical reasons would be extended to include
>>such procedures (eliminating exceptions for public funding).  Also
>>once evidence of life or sustainable life exist, the state has a
>>compelling interest to equally protect the lives of both the mother
>>and child.  Therefore, no abortions could be performed after that point,
>>except in life-threatening cases.
>
>>The result would be two-fold.  Women would truly be guaranteed the right 
>>choose for somewhere between 8 and 20 weeks.  Women who have not opted
>>to terminate pregnancy by default would have freely decided to carry
>
>[deletions galore]
>
>>Joe Moore
>
>Under this rule, I would be a batchelor today. When Florence and I
>met, she was recently widowed. About 3-4 years before she noticed
>a weight gain and consulted her doctor. Both her GY-OBN and the
>operator of the sonogram maintained that she was pregnant. Her
>husband knew better and demanded they operate. They removed
>a 12-15 lb tumor. The doctor's conclusion afterward was that
>another month would have been too late. However, it took her
>husband's demands to get her on the table.
>
>Now, if any here wonder why I am pro-women's-rights, it may be
>clearer to you. You seem to forget that they call it the
>*practice* of medicine, and maybe one day they will get it
>right.
>
>Sure, I get a little rabid at times in this group. Its mainly
>when some young male puppy tries to pontificate on what women
>should be allowed or not allowed. Then it starts me thinking
>that I would not be sharing the joy, warmth, love, and passion
>of this delightfull woman, and I can get just a little upset.
>
Re-read the deletions.  I asked for conclusive evidence.  A heartbeat
and perhaps also signs of viability (size, health, etc.)  Did the
tumor have a heartbeat?  I wouldn't begin to tell anyone what they
can or cannot do until they start imposing force on another person.
And I think the guarantees of privacy dictates that conclusive 
evidence be available.  And of course life threatening situations
are always an exception.

Joe "young male puppy" Moore
Xref: sparky soc.men:18700 soc.women:18881 alt.abortion.inequity:4865 talk.abortion:46775 alt.feminism:3756
From: dsh@odin.uucp (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: compromise
Date: 5 Nov 92 19:59:56 GMT
Article-I.D.: ncsu.1992Nov5.195956.27302
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Distribution: na
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <Bx8wxx.6Dz@cs.psu.edu> 
beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

>peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:

>>jrmo@volta.att.com (J.R.Moore) writes:

>>> Choose a point that marks a time when the pregnancy becomes more
>>> than a private matter....

>> Congratulations!  You've just lined out the basic idea behind Roe v Wade.

> Not at all.
>
> Roe v. Wade *allowed* the state to decide to prevent abortions 
> after viability, because of a compelling interest.

Roe v. Wade does not permit the states to prohibit post-viability
abortions which are necessary to preserve the woman's ``health''
or life, where the term ``health'' is given a very broad interpretation,
which includes emotional and psychological health.  

> It did not say that the state *must* prevent abortions after viability,
> or must deduce that its "compelling interest" *requires* banning abortions.
>
> Any state in the Union can permit an abortion on the day before birth.

Actually, Roe v. Wade does not allow a state to prohibit an abortion 
on the day before birth, if that abortion is necessary to preserve
the woman's ``health''.  In essence, Roe v. Wade is unrestricted
abortion-on-demand, all the way up to the point of birth.  

>Don


Doug Holtsinger
Xref: sparky soc.men:18841 soc.women:19028 alt.abortion.inequity:4930 talk.abortion:47050 alt.feminism:3904
From: auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: compromise
Date: 7 Nov 92 19:30:55 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Swarthmore College, PA

In article <BxCtI5.8ut@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>In article <XPTSBFRQ@cc.swarthmore.edu> auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer) writes:
>[...]
>Who's "we"?  Are you a spokesman?  [...]

We would be those who espouse a pro-choice position.

I am not a spokesman.  I am more of an outspoken student concerned with these
issues.  Luckily enough for the movement, there are plenty of articulate,
active spokespersons out there.

I am not going to be posting any more, for being a student, I have certain
responsibilities to fulfill which keeping up with this newsgroup might
interfere with if continued.  Nonetheless, I will entertain email replies.

-dave
Xref: sparky soc.men:18960 soc.singles:30175
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What do you Am men think about Am women?
Date: 9 Nov 92 20:27:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.1992Nov9.202710.26265
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <MARTINC.92Nov8150437@grover.cs.unc.edu> martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:
>In article <1992Nov6.210652.712@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>
>   >...In action movies, who usually rescues whom?  Do male characters
>   >rescue female characters or vice-versa?  How are women usually shown
>   >in these movies?  Let's look at thrillers.  How many women-in-danger-
>   >movies have we seen the last couple of years?  It can be argued that 
>   >showing women as victims who need to be rescued by men is "female 
>   >bashing."
>
>Are you arguing so?  If so, come out and say it, and we can have that
>battle.  (Although -my- heart won't be in it, because I largely agree
>with you, at least if that is indeed what you would argue.)
>


         I didn't write this. The attribution is messed up.

-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!

       "Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on this planet.
        Then all things are at risk. It is as when a conflagration has
        broken out in a great city, and no man knows what is safe, or
        where it will end."
                               - Emerson: Essay, "Circles"
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: the BA-TA get-together shindig blowout!!
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 15:28:49 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.045435.22775@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>It was so nice of Larry to make a special trip out here for the event (but
>that's the kind of dedicated people pro-choicers are).  The conversation
>was scintilating, as usual and consisted of politics, work, personal life,
>and, of course, the "special cases" here on t.a.
I also want to publicly thank Larry for leading me to the InterOp
promised land and helping me get lots of boffo free stuff from
the salesdroids.
-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
From: forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu (Eric Forbis)
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Organization: University of Minnesota
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 01:55:58 GMT

In article <1992Nov3.145708.2748@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> jrmo@volta.att.com (J.R.Moore) writes:
>Xref: news.cis.umn.edu soc.men:18397 soc.women:18370 alt.abortion.inequity:4904 talk.abortion:45945 alt.feminism:3641
>Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
>Path: news.cis.umn.edu!umn.edu!spool.mu.edu!agate!ames!pacbell.com!att-out!cbnewsl!cbnewsk!volta!jrmo
>From: jrmo@volta.att.com (J.R.Moore)
>Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
>Organization: AT&T Bell Labs
>Distribution: na
>Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1992 14:57:08 GMT
>Message-ID: <1992Nov3.145708.2748@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>
>References: <N0GSB7DQ@cc.swarthmore.edu> <1992Oct30.145703.13722@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> <forb0004.33.720650534@student.tc.umn.edu>
>Sender: news@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (NetNews Administrator)
>Nntp-Posting-Host: volta.pr.att.com
>Lines: 26
>In article <forb0004.33.720650534@student.tc.umn.edu> forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu (Eric Forbis) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct30.145703.13722@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> jrmo@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (joseph.r.moore) writes:
>>>From: jrmo@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (joseph.r.moore)
>>>Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
>>>Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1992 14:57:03 GMT
>>>I have some thoughts.  Really.
>>[Material Zapped]
>>>
>>>That said, it's embarrassing to see people go to such lengths to try
>>>to restrict abortions using lame ideas like spousal notification.  And
>>>we all know that the next step from notification is consent.  
>>
>>You've completely missed the point: spousal notification is about father's 
>>rights. Notification doesn't equal or imply consent in any way. 
>>
>I don't think I missed the point.  I do believe you did.  There are two
>possibilities, either the fetus is a baby, thus making the sperm donor
>a father, or it isn't thus making the sperm donor irrelevant.
>
>If the fetus is not a separate entity deserving of rights, namely the
>right to life, than it is distinctly part of the woman and under her sole 
>control.  If consent isn't the issue, what are you going to do, have a
>funeral?
>

Que? The fetus is a distinct, separate entity whether or not you wish treat 
it as such legally. There's a reality underneath all this legalistic garbage 
going on; the fetus doesn't magically become a simple growth of a woman or 
sharpen into a distinct entity as the political winds blow. 

As for your "funeral" quip, if I understand you correctly the answer is 
"yes". Consent isn't the issue. 

Are you trying to keep abortion a relatively painless issue by trying to 
pretend that when it's legal (or because it's legal) the fetus doesn't exist 
as an entity? You can/should recognize the child you're about to abort; this 
doesn't invalidate the reasons for seeking an abortion. 
---------

Eric Forbis      forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu
From: dwelch@mpd.tandem.com (Dan Welch)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Date: 11 Nov 92 20:37:45 GMT
Organization: Tandem Computers (MPD) Austin, TX

In article <1992Nov8.190743.8606@dragon.acadiau.ca> 891666t@dragon.acadiau.ca (Trish Turliuk) writes:
>I'm an adult. Why can I not choose to live in a world absent of advertising?
>I am not able to make that choice without receding into a cave. 

This is a classic example of "Be careful what you are asking for -- you just
might get it."

The only way you could have a world free of advertising is if one and only
one variety of ANYTHING was allowed to be produced.  One type of pants, one
type of television, one flavor of ice cream, on and on.  If there was more
than one type of anything, how would you know, anyway?

We could just have a register of where you could go to buy whatever you
wanted.  Of course, all of these places would have to be owned by one large
conglomerate, most likely the government, since if they were separately
owned the two would have to advertise to distinguish themselves.  No price
competition would happen -- how would the consumers find out about it?

Can you imagine how dulldulldull your life would be without the variety
of goods you have access to?  Do you really want to give all that up?  The
two -- variety and advertising -- go together.  If one exists, so does the
other.  If one doesn't, neither will the other.  Personally, I'm willing
to put up with Madison Avenue overkill to insure that I can choose between
five different brands of corn at the corner foodstore.

Daniel Welch
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism