HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lmann@jjmhome.UUCP (Laurie Mann)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: 25 Lessons for Life
Date: 1 Jan 93 14:10:22 GMT

(This appeared in a magazine article over the fall.  A woman on AmericaOnline
E-mailed a copy around.  Though I've given up making my own New Year's
Resolutions, I really like the tone of this list.  So, in the spirit of the
New Year, I give you:)

                 25 Lessons for Life by Marian Wright Edelman
 
There is no free lunch.  Don't feel entitled to anything you don't sweat
and struggle for.
 
Set goals and work quietly and systematically toward them.
 
Assign yourself.
 
Never work for just money or for power.  They won't save your soul or build
a decent family or help you sleep at night.
 
Don't be afraid of taking risks or of being criticized.
 
Take parenting and family life seriously and insist that those your work
for and who represent you do.
 
Remember that your wife/husband is not your mother/father or servant,
but your partner and friend.
 
Forming families is serious business.
 
Be honest.
 
Remember and help America remember that the fellowship of human beings is
more important that the fellowship of race and class and gender in a
democratic society.
 
Sell the shadow for the substance.
 
NEVER GIVE UP!
 
Be confident that you can make a difference.
 
Don't ever stop learning and improving your mind.
 
Don't be afraid of hard work or teaching your childen to work.
 
"Slow down and live."
 
Choose your friends carefully.
 
Be a can-do, will-try person.
 
Try to live in the present.
 
Use your political and economic power for the community.
 
Listen for "the sound of the genuine" within yourself & others.
 
YOU ARE IN CHARGE OF YOUR OWN ATTITUDE.
 
Remember your roots, your history, & the forebears' shoulder on which you
stand.
 
Be reliable.  Be faithful.  Finish what you start.
 
Always remember that you are NEVER alone.

*     NeXT: lmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com * GEnie:  Laurie.Mann     *
*  In Germany they first came for the Communists, and I didn't speak  *
*  because I wasn't a Communist.  Then they came for the Jews, and I  *
*  didn't speak because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade  *  
*  unionists, and I didn't speak because I wasn't a trade unionist..  *
*Then they came for me---and by that time no one was left to speak up.*
*       Martin Niemoeller     Why to March on Washington, 4/93        *
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: acp@cray.com (Anthony Peterson)
Subject: Re: Men & Women, "Males & Females"
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 21 Dec 92 11:01:43 CST

In article <michael.724953972@glia> michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael) writes:
>In <1992Dec20.110910.24188@hemlock.cray.com> acp@cray.com (Anthony Peterson) writes:
>>In article <1h0carINN1k9@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>>sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell) writes:
>>>
>>>>I've noticed that many men ( sometimes myself ) get very annoyed by
>>>>women/feminists referring to them excluisively as "males".
>
>>>I doubt that most people intend either term as an insult.
>
>>	Wouldn't the term males include male dogs, skinks, goldfish,
>>	etc as well as male humans?
>
>Kind of depends on the context of the conversation.  If we are discussing
>pets or animals, then surely.  If we are discussing human issues, then
>no.  I sincerely doubt we are going to suffer much confusion in this
>area. *laugh*
>
	First, I'm not offended or confused by the use of the terms male or
	female in conversation and am a bit surprised that my question has
	caused "much confusion in this area". I just happen to wonder why
	these unnecessarily dehumanizing references are used.
Xref: sparky soc.women:21954 soc.men:21900 talk.abortion:53527
From: joemays@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Joseph F. Mays)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Parallell situations (was Re: Muffy becomes anti-choice)
Date: 30 Dec 92 17:20:51 GMT
Organization: Dept. of CS Ball State University Muncie IN

In article <1992Dec30.011753.7937@cs.ucla.edu> gds@cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner) writes:

>It has been said in these newsgroups (and elsewhere) that one reason a
>woman might abort is because she is not financially able to support
>the child if it were to be born, regardless of whether the father
>could support the child.  Thus, a woman is able to exercise her right
>to abort her financial responsibility if she so chooses.

No one is arguing with this, but the point is that it has nothing to do
with why she has the choice.

>If abortions did not destroy fetuses, but instead removed them intact
>from women's bodies and placed them where they could grow to become
>normal, healthy children, the financial responsibility to these
>children would still belong to both of the parents.

Yup.  You're catching on.

Joe


Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism,talk.abortion
From: steve@fulcrum.oz.au (Steve Taylor)
Subject: Re: How to Protect Women
Organization: The Fulcrum Consulting Group
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 04:24:05 GMT

Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:

>In my humble opinion, IF I were in an abusive relationship, I would LEAVE!  I
>would never allow it to degrade to a situation where I was in a life and death
>struggle and was forced to use deadly force in order to prevent someone from
>using deadly force against me.

It's not that simple. Leaving can be a risk in itself. Do you have the
courage to leave when you know that you're risking much more extreme
violence? Yes, leaving is the right thing to do, but it's no always safe.



							Steve
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Ecomasculinism and living
X-To: ALL
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 23:11:00 GMT

dsouza@cwis.unomaha.edu (Henry D'Souza) writes...
HD> Loveland, Ohio
HD> January 26-May 19, 1993

HD> NEW WOMEN, NEW EARTH, a residential, experiential
HD> living/learning semester exploring related themes
HD> of ecofeminism, justice, spirituality and arts using
HD> Grailville's 300 acres of organic gardens/farmland as a
HD> base. Individual and group study, interaction with
HD> visiting scholars, experience in sustainable agriculture,
HD> creating rituals, communit-as-process, arts. Open to
HD> women from all stages of life. College credit available.
HD> Contact: Audrey Sorrento, Grailville, 932 O'Bannonville Rd.
HD> Loveland, OH 45140. (513)683-2340


Okay, then...

Toronto, Ontario
January 26-May 19, 1993

NEW MEN, NEW EARTH, a residential, experiential
living/learning semester exploring related themes
of ecomasculinism, justice, spirituality and arts using
Clairville's 300 acres of organic gardens/farmland as a
base. Individual and group study, interaction with
visiting scholars, experience in sustainable agriculture,
creating rituals, communit-as-process, arts. Open to
men from all stages of life. College credit available.


Well!  What's good for the gander is good for the goose, isn't it?  :-)

---
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 * If it has feelings, it's not cooked enough.
Xref: sparky soc.women:22011 soc.men:21990 alt.feminism:6702 talk.abortion:53823
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Update on "home alone" kids in Chicago [Re: Parallel situations]
Date: 1 Jan 93 02:10:30 GMT
Organization: Who, me???

In article <MITCHELL.92Dec30115243@gluttony.uchicago.edu> mitchell@cs.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>>>> "JD" == Jay Deuel <jay@UUSERV.CC.UTAH.EDU> writes:
>
>  JD> P.S. How about the Chicago couple that left their kids "home
>  JD> alone"?
>
>They got home yesterday or today (I'm writing on Wednesday, 30 Dec),
>and were immediately arrested.  They were charged with child neglect,
>child endangerment, and a third count that I can't remember.
>
>The children were first placed with a grandmother, but now have been
>moved into a foster home.  The early news stories said that the
>grandmother declared that she found she couldn't take care of them,
>but now make it sound more as though DCFS just decided to take them
>away.
>
>As far as I've heard, the parents have not made any statement.
>
>
>[Allcaps warning.]  Usenet is after all supposedly "news", so I
>answered with some news even though JD's question seemed to be
>directed elsewhere.  But I can't address whatever point he was making
>with this example, since I just flash unread through articles on the
>POINTLESS, ADSURD, MISGUIDED topics of men's supposed "rights" vis a
>vis abortion, 

I am unaware of anyone seriously advocating giving any "abortion rights" to 
men (although a few anti-male-choicers have "jokingly" given their support
for men to abort), Mitch. In fact, most male-choicers are solidly pro-choice.

>...and the INFURIATINGLY ILLOGICAL and basically MISOGYNIST
>arguments about it based on views about child support.

What do you find "illogical" about trying to promote gender-equity, reduce the
problem of illegitimate children, and holding people commensurately 
responsible for their voluntarily-incurred debts? None of these seem 
inherently "illogical" to me...

								- Kevin
Xref: sparky soc.women:21836 soc.men:21691 alt.feminism:6438 talk.abortion:52725
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Muffy becomes anti-choice (absolutely false)
Date: 22 Dec 1992 16:13:03 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Dec22.172028.1@d0gslb.fnal.gov> holzman@d0gslb.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman) writes:
>In article <MUFFY.92Dec21182007@remarque.berkeley.edu>, 
>muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>> Nope.  I consider abortion to be *one way* of "dealing with the
>> consequences."

>If aborting the fetus is a perfectly fine way for a woman to "deal with the
>consequences," why is a parallell for men not a perfectly fine way for men to
>"deal with the consequences?"

Uh, 

but,


Daniel,

We haven't seen 'a parallell' yet.

We have seen many things, but we haven't seen a parallell yet.

Got one to show us?

Adrienne Regard
From: news@mont.cs.missouri.edu
Subject: Re: What can we expect from President Hillary Clinton?
Organization: University of Missouri
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 93 15:50:46 CST

In article <1i26fpINNesa@gw.home.vix.com>
shedevil@vix.com (Anne P. Mitchell JD) writes:
 
(regarding false allegations of abuse made against ex-husbands)
 
>We in the biz call this the "nuclear bomb" of the divorce/custody
>war.  It's quick, it's easy, and it acheives the desired result:
>immediate, and often permanent, removal of the 'enemy'.  Women love it.
                                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
Do *you* love the fact that it happens, Anne? Are you a woman? I find
it deplorable and I'm a woman. I think that this topic, like the majority
of topics that are thrown around here, suffers from too many generalizations
(to make a generalization :) ).
Making rash and unfounded statements about what a group of people do or think
is doing nothing to promote understanding.
Diane
Newsgroups: soc.women,talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.flame
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Parallel situations (was Re: Muffy becomes anti-choice)
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 04:14:12 GMT

gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:
->Don't waste time explaining anything to Adrienne.

oh stop whining. since you obviously can't cope with
adult women, why don't you start debating in some of
the kiddie groups. plus, no one will say the magic word
which makes you disappear there.

salit!

Xref: sparky soc.women:21964 soc.men:21910 alt.feminism:6639 talk.abortion:53583
From: holzman@d0gslb.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Parallel situations
Date: 30 Dec 92 22:00:12 GMT
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: d0gslb.fnal.gov

In article <1992Dec30.190954.17494@ncar.ucar.edu>, marcia@rap.ucar.edu (Marcia 
Politovich) writes:
>>P.S. How about the Chicago couple that left their kids "home alone"?
> 
> Personally I think they ought to be horsewhipped (I'm serious, too).
> Apparantly a lot of people do this and it's a sad comment on our times.

At present, they are trying to raise $50,000 in bail to avoid a second night in
jail, where they are presently being held pending felony charges of child
abandonment.

-- 
Daniel B. Holzman                    | Eight Words the Witch's Rede Fufill:
HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET                  | An It Harm None, Do What You Will
HOLZMAN@FNALC.FNAL.GOV.INTERNET      |
                                     | All Acts of Love and Pleasure are
Love doesn't subtract,               | Her Rituals
   it multiplies    - Heinlein       |
                                     | Speak the Word.
Disclaimer:  Fermilab's far too large to have an opinion, let alone mine.
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: acp@cray.com (Anthony Peterson)
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 23 Dec 92 10:29:59 CST

In article <1h9p4iINN6kj@transfer.stratus.com> lmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com writes:
>
>Of course it's intrinsically bad.  But if you're a man, you're not
>likely to be killed by your SO in your own home as it were.  (Again,
>I'm not saying men are never killed by their SOs in their home, just
>that, statistically, it happens more often to WOMEN than to MEN.)
>
	Just because more women than men are killed by their SO's does
	not mean that they're "likely" to be killed by their SO's.
From: lmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Laurie Mann)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Date: 22 Dec 1992 13:30:58 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
Reply-To: lmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: ansible.pubs.stratus.com

Richard Harter writes
>In article <MUFFY.92Dec21154021@remarque.berkeley.edu>  
muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>>The issue is not the right to comit violence at all! The issue is that
>>>men are also the victims of violence.
>>No, the issue is that every time someone talks about the violence that
>>is practiced against women, some people here start shouting about the
>>violence that happens to men.
>Er, I think you're missing the essence of the matter.  Rightly or wrongly
>there is a perception that "you" feel that violence against women is
>intrinsically worse than violence against men.
>
>For every woman that is the victim of violence there are three men that
>are the victims of violence.  Since "we" see a special need for action
>against violence against women, but not against men, the natural conclusion
>is that "we" feel that violence against a woman is more than three times
>as serious as violence against a man.

The reason I think many women are so frustrated is that most of the violence  
committed in a society is committed BY MEN.  And whenever women talk about  
violence against women, most of that violence is committed BY MEN.  Violence  
committed against MEN by OTHER MEN is also wrong.  So is violence committed by  
women.

But when men commit violence against other men, it's often in connection with  
some other crime---a gang turf war, a drug deal gone wrong, etc.  When violence  
is committed against a woman, it can be a random attack, but over half the time  
it's by an SO or by her ex-SO.  And when children are the victim of violence,  
it's more than likely by their fathers, then by their mothers, and then by  
other adults in the lives.

In Massachusetts this year, nearly 50 women and children have been murdered by  
the men in their lives or by the former men in their lives.  In that same time,  
something like 2 men were killed by their female SOs, and something like 4  
children have been killed by their mothers.  So don't you see at least a little
discrepency in these numbers? 

>"We" and "you" are in quotes because I am referring to generic societal
>attitudes, not to particular people.

Thanks,  that's a worthwhile distinction.

*  In Germany they first came for the Communists, and I didn't speak *
*  because I wasn't a Communist.  Then they came for the Jews, and I *
*  didn't speak because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade *
* unionists, and I didn't speak because I wasn't a trade unionist... *
*Then they came for me--and by that time no one was left to speak up.*
*  Rev. Martin Niemoeller     [Why to March on Washington in April]  *
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell)
Subject: Re: Dear Abby's Survey
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 15:30:51 GMT




In soc.women, acw4@quads.uchicago.edu ("The Wan-ster") writes:

    Interesting tidbit:

    A few weeks ago,
    Ann Landers wrote in her column:

    -----begin article----------

    	"...On Nov. 4, 1984, I asked the following question:  
    "Would you be content to be held close and treated tenderly
    and forget about "the act"?  Reply YES or NO and add one line -
    'I am over (or under) 40 years of age.' No signature necessary."

    . . .
    
    ----end of article---.

    Now granted, the sample was probably biased as it was only those
    who felt strongly enough about the subject who probably wrote in, as well
    as those who read Ann Landers in the first place.  So, I am curious
    how the guys in the netland (a much less biased population, I am sure :)
    feel about this issue.  Are there any GUYS
    who would answer YES to the question in the survey?



Depends on my mood ;)

Steve R
Xref: sparky soc.women:22063 soc.men:22046 alt.feminism:6750 talk.abortion:53942 alt.flame:17563 alt.fan.kevin-darcy:675
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism,talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
Subject: Re: Parallel situations
Date: 3 Jan 93 15:33:42 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

in an article posted to soc.women, soc.men,
alt.feminism, and talk.abortion,

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes to larry margolis:

-> Larry, the topic of discussion is child support.

that's why you, the person whose child-support ravings
was a prime reason for the creation of
alt.child-support, directed your post to none of the
groups whose focus is child support, eh?

sure.
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: Jack_Webb@mindlink.bc.ca (Jack Webb)
Subject: Choice For Men != Not Wanting Children (was: Pre-Sex Contrac
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 06:45:28 GMT

{long article on abortion vs. fatherhood vs. ... deleted}


No big problem here, but shouldn't this thread be in the abortion group?

*j*  :)

--
WE SAIL TONIGHT FOR SINGAPORE - WE'RE ALL AS MAD AS HATTERS HERE!!

*******************Jack_Webb@mindlink.bc.ca***********************
****VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA...HOME OF THE NEUROTIC****
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism,talk.abortion
From: holzman@d0gslb.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Subject: Parallell situations (was Re: Muffy becomes anti-choice)
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 22:27:39 GMT
X-Posted-From: d0gslb.fnal.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1h8aufINNbs3@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com>, regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com 
(Adrienne Regard) writes:
> Uh, 
> 
> but,
> 
> 
> Daniel,
> 
> We haven't seen 'a parallell' yet.
> 
> We have seen many things, but we haven't seen a parallell yet.
> 
> Got one to show us?

A parallell has been posted here several times.  Here we go again:

During the time that a woman can legally obtain an abortion, less lead time for
notification purposes, a man should be able to legally disolve all ties to a
fetus.

The woman then understands that if she is going to carry the pregnancy to term
and raise the child, that she is going to do so on her own, or with the
financial aid of someone who wishes to be a parent to this child, and will be
in a position to choose to abort or carry to term taking this information into
account.  If she is going to put the child up for adoption, the father will 
have no more claim on the child than any other person.  If she is going to 
abort the fetus, the cost of the abortion will be shared by the man.

In the absence of such a dissolution, the father shall be liable for child
support.  However, the father shall not be required to pay for an abortion he
does not support.  In the absence of such a dissolution, should the mother wish
to put the child up for adoption, the father shall have an unopposed right to
custody instead.  Only in the event of both parents wishing to give the child
up for adoption shall the child be so given.

In no circumstance shall a man be permitted to compel a woman to have an
abortion she does not wish to have.

The situations are parallell.  The mother has the unilateral right to decide if
she is ready to become a parent, and the recourse to see that decision put into
effect.  The father has the unilateral right to decide if he is ready to become
a parent, and the recourse to see that decision put into effect.
-- 
Daniel B. Holzman                    | Eight Words the Witch's Rede Fufill:
HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET                  | An It Harm None, Do What You Will
HOLZMAN@FNALC.FNAL.GOV.INTERNET      |
                                     | All Acts of Love and Pleasure are
Love doesn't subtract,               | Her Rituals
   it multiplies    - Heinlein       |
                                     | Speak the Word.
Disclaimer:  Fermilab's far too large to have an opinion, let alone mine.
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: krw@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (keith.r.smith)
Subject: Re: thermal underpants
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 15:01:52 GMT

In article <168C4E567.SURGDM@mizzou1.missouri.edu> Diane writes:
>In article <1992Dec21.202818.18401@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>
>krw@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (keith.r.smith) writes:
> 
>    <stuff deleted>
> 
>>I compares the "specs" on a number of differrent brands, with their
>>own separate sizing schemes, and determined that a women's small should
>>fit me properly.  I opened a package.  The legs looked long enough,
>>(I stand 5'11") they looked about big enough around in the thighs and
>>in the hips, and the waistband looked just-right!  The only thing missing
>>
>>What do ya' think, folx?
>>
>>Keith R
> 
>Well Keith, I think you did a very nice job of explaining the women's
>undies in your sock drawer. *Now* how are you going to explain the
>bra and fishnet hose in the box at the bottom of your closet???
>;-)
> 
>Diane

Hi Diane,
About the bra and fishnet hose.....
Well, ya see, my old SO used to do my laundry with hers (long story...)
and sometimes things did not get sorted properly.

Yeah, that's it! That's the ticket!
Well that's _my story_ and I'm stickin' to it ;-).

Have a nice holiday!

Keith R
Xref: sparky soc.women:21787 soc.men:21620 alt.feminism:6362 talk.abortion:52623