HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Keith's attitude towards abortion (was: Guilty...)
X-To: NADJA ADOLF
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 03:12:00 GMT

nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes...
NA> In article <1992Oct18.175525.17233@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.e
NA> Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
NA> >"Don't really agree with it" is puting it mildly.  The day that no abortion
NA> >will be performed for any reason will be the day I'm happy about the while
NA> >situation.

NA> Excuse me? Do you really prefer that women who develop severe health problem
NA> in pregnancy die rather than have abortions?


Keith did *not* say this at all.  Re-read the rest of his post, and you will
clearly see that the above is *not* his opinion at all.  He believes that
while abortion is wrong, he won't attempt to stop women from making the
choice.

This is basically my position as well, although I don't state it in exactly
the same words as Keith (but that is the *only* difference).

---
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 * "I hate questionnaires."  - Worf
Xref: sparky soc.women:19217 sci.anthropology:1347 ca.politics:9488 alt.politics.correct:5840 talk.politics.misc:59334 soc.men:18989 sci.psychology:4333
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Newsgroups: soc.women,sci.anthropology,ca.politics,alt.politics.correct,talk.politics.misc,soc.men,sci.psychology
Subject: More Women Than Men Prefer to be Alone
Followup-To: soc.women
Date: 10 Nov 1992 15:08:08 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: aerospace.aero.org

A news item this morning said that 20% of married men preferred to be home
alone. However, 50% of married women preferred to be home alone.

Are there other studies similiar to this? What are the reasons for more
women then men preferreing to be by themselves?

Richard Foy  Redondo Beach, CA         Standard Disclaimer


Xref: sparky soc.women:19466 alt.abortion.inequity:5056 talk.abortion:47777 alt.feminism:4300 soc.men:19199
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Date: 12 Nov 92 19:46:49 GMT
Article-I.D.: gap.1ducb9INNgek
Distribution: na
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:

>Would you care to fill me in on the details? Is this the millionth
>unspoken assumption, or the one after that?

It's the one after that.  Happy?

							--  Michal
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: feathers@eskimo.celestial.com (Cheryl Owen)
Subject: Re: More Women Than Men Prefer to be Alone
Organization: =>ESKIMO NORTH (206) 367-3837 SEATTLE, WA.<=
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 13:48:57 GMT


Men.  :)
From: carroll@cs.uiuc.edu (Alan M. Carroll)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Sad Day for Liberty
Date: 10 Nov 92 01:09:31 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Technophiles Inc. - Engineers with Attitude

In article <1992Nov9.052903.23184@leland.Stanford.EDU>, farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
> From what I've seen of the Libertarian position, they want this
> inequality enforced to preserve their freedom of association.

No. In this case the FOA is a special case of property rights, which
Libertarians contend should be enforced. In this view, owning a bus is
no different than owning a house - it is up to the owner to decide who
is allowed on and under what conditions. What I like most about
Libertarianism is that, at the bottom, it can be summed up in one word
- "consent". Interactions between people (both personal and economic)
should be concensual.

-- 
Alan M. Carroll          "Weren't there yams involved, too?" - J. Ockerbloom
Epoch Development Team   
Urbana Il.               "I hate shopping with the reality-impaired" - Susan
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Am I "exploiting" this woman?
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 22:06:23 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.200216.26250@adobe.com> kendall@adobe.com
(Janice Kendall) writes:
>In article <Bx6EA9.Mz9@ccu.umanitoba.ca> kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts) writes:
>>In <1992Nov3.195735.13037@adobe.com> kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall) writes:

> I did not say you *cannot* read such things in public.  The tone of my
> post was that, in the work place, sexual material makes some women
> very uncomfortable.

There are other things that make some people very uncomfortable.
Should they be banned, also?

>  There is a high probability that some of the women
> you work with have been raped or sexually abused as a child.

So?  There's a high probability that some of the men you work with
were beaten up as children.  Should we ban martial-arts magazines
becaause of that?

>   Why is it any skin off your teeth to leave that
> stuff at home???

I agree that it is the right thing to do to leave it at home.
However, as has been said before, freedom means having to put up with
a lot of shit that really pisses you off.

>>	I myself plan to get a 1993 Sports Illustrated Swim Suit Calender
>>solely as a protest against the polically Incorrect Attitude that I shouldn't.

> Oh.  In my opinion, this is a sign of immaturity, having to do something
> because you feel you've been told you can't.

Sometimes it's a sign of immaturity, sometimes it's necessary to
defend liberties that we wouldn't particularly want to exercise if
they weren't under attack.

>  It has nothing to do 
> with political correctness.  It has nothing to do with whether or not
> you are *allowed* - i.e., I'd *never* advocate passage of a law barring
> sexual material from the workplace.  It has much to do with *consideration* 
> for the feelings of your co-workers.  

Unfortunately, there are such laws and rules.  (I don't object to a
company making such rules; the company has the right to decide what it
wants in its workplace.  I object to laws that coerce companies into
making such rules.)

> I am asking men to consider whether it is more important for them to be 
> able to stare at "T&A" during work hours or if it is more important that 
> they give consideration to the feelings and comfort of their co-workers?

It's more important to give consideration to co-workers.  Another
thing to consider is whether it is more important to give
considerating to the feelings of co-workers, or to defend our
liberties.

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: cathy@octel.com (Cathy Kearns)
Subject: Re: Women in Combat
Organization: Octel Communications Inc., Milpitas Ca.
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 01:17:39 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.095500.9583@news.cs.indiana.edu> "Amy Young Leith" <alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu> writes:
>In article <4221@novavax.UUCP> vaccaro@novavax.UUCP (N. Trafford Vaccaro) writes:
>
>>You want people to keep their minds on their job. Now what do
>>you suppose is on a lot of 18 year old men's minds when they
>>are sitting out in the field, bored, and haven't seen a female
>>in weeks? I've seen what happens when several young men are
>>trying to "date" the one woman that shows up at the enlisted club.
>>They're at each other's throats. 

.....

>Perhaps this attitude of being "girl hungry" after being at it for a
>while comes because 1)these people view women as nothing more than
>objects (surprise, surprise), and that would change if they were SHOWN
>that yes, women are equal.  Not just toys for their enjoyment.  2)You
>tend to respect those that you know personally more then just some
>women who walks into a bar.  3)And you're going to LEARN to respect
>them, if they are protecting your butt in battle.  

Perhaps the army will learn what American Universities learned when
they went co-ed, and indeed, started having co-ed dorms.  For some
reason, the women and men you live with, study with, see wandering
down the hall to the showers (before!), etc, are much more likely
to be friends, and even surrogate siblings than overnight stands.
It should be pointed out that the 18 year old men, sitting out
in the field, bored, will have seen a female in weeks, as a matter
of fact, they will have been sweating with, running with, slogging
through mud with, etc these women for all those weeks.  And will
probably feel comfortable enough with them to cry on their shoulder's
about their dear john (or jane) letters, and will probably really
become friends.  Unfortunately, this will not solve the problem at
the enlisted club.  All the men will still be at each other's throats
for a dance with the one woman outside their battalion.  And similiar
thoughts will go through the women's head over the attention of the
one civilian man to drop in.  I saw it happen time and again with
visitors to the dorms.

					Cathy


Newsgroups: soc.women
From: cfaks@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Alice Sanders)
Subject: getting fired after making sexual harrassment complaint - illegal?
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1992 04:35:45 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

I'm looking for information for a woman I know who was put on probation at
work the day after she made a sexual harrassment complaint against a male
coworker.  Her supervisor was a woman with whom she got along very well
until the day after she made the complaint.  She had worked at the company
for three years and had an excellent work record.  Other women in the
company also wanted to complain about this harrasser but were afraid.
This woman took it upon herself to come forward because she was confident
of her position in the company and so was not afraid.  After being put on
probation and being under severe stress, she became ill and missed 10 days
of work out of 60 days, all with sick pay.  She was fired 90 days to the
day that she had made the complaint, supposedly for missing too much work.
Later she was told that she did not fit the image of the company.

Can anyone provide info as to this woman's rights, to what extent her
treatment was illegal, etc.?  She has gone to the labor board and intends
to hire an attorney. Any suggestions?  Thank you.

Alice
 
Xref: sparky soc.women:19502 soc.men:19229
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: A GREAT Night for Americans!  (Women especially!)
Date: 13 Nov 92 18:53:02 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Nov13.174016.11321@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
>Science, the December 29 1991 issue had some figures from a then-recent GAO
>report.
>
>                    Total Funding (millions)   Funding per Death (thousands)
>Stroke                   75                        .5
>Lung cancer              80                        .5
>Prostate cancer          30                        1
>Breast cancer            120                       2.5
>Aids                     350                       15  
>
>Since then, funding for breast cancer has gone up even more - I don't recall
>the exact magnitude of the current increase, but it was quite large.

  Note an imporant flaw in looking at "Funding per Death".  Not all
  diseases have the same death rate and not all diseases have the same
  future projections of deaths.   For instance, AIDS is a very new
  disease with a long incubation period.    But everybody who is
  currently HIV+ will die from it unless a cure is found, and there
  are somewhere between 1-2 million HIV+ people in the US.   So based
  on the *expected* death rate, this funding is not high at all. 
  Likewise breast cancer, has a relatively high survival rate (~70%)
  so it may be more meaningful to look at funding per case, rather than
  funding per death.   Also, note that, like AIDS, the rate of breast
  cancer is increasing dramatically and research has a long lead
  time so we have to base our efforts on expected future rates.

  Prostate cancer probaby is underfunded on this basis, but this
  is changing as more men are willing to go public about it.  (my
  father died of prostate cancer, BTW).  Also note the demographics
  of prostate cancer: it's extremely common in old men, but mostly
  it's a very slow grower and most prostate cancer victims die
  of natural causes.  This has tended to result in less urgency
  about it.  But now that men are living longer this is changing.

  Also, note that the epidemiology of lung cancer and stroke are
  relatively well understood compared to other deadly diseases
  (likewise AIDS but this does nothing for those already HIV+).
  That is, we alredy know how to greatly reduce the number of deaths
  from these diseases in the next few decades. And indeed, as
  smoking declines lung cancer is expected to decline, too. 
  But we don't have a clue how to significantly reduce the risks
  of breast and prostate cancer.  

  Bottom line: the table above is all apples-and-oranges.

---peter

  
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: A GREAT Night for Americans!  (Women especially!)
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 17:40:16 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.195932.8074@adobe.com> kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall) writes:
)In article <1992Nov9.234831.7188@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:

(stuff omitted)

)>Clintion's support of the proposal of even yet more funding for Breast Cancer
)>research seems to me to be clearly discriminatory, given the fact that it is
)>funded at 2.5x the death rate of other forms of cancer research, and is
)>rising above that already high figure.
)
) Where did you hear this?

Science, the December 29 1991 issue had some figures from a then-recent GAO
report.

                    Total Funding (millions)   Funding per Death (thousands)
Stroke                   75                        .5
Lung cancer              80                        .5
Prostate cancer          30                        1
Breast cancer            120                       2.5
Aids                     350                       15  

Since then, funding for breast cancer has gone up even more - I don't recall
the exact magnitude of the current increase, but it was quite large.
Xref: sparky soc.women:18951 talk.politics.theory:4758 sci.philosophy.tech:3938 sci.philosophy.meta:2387 sci.classics:928
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: soc.women,talk.politics.theory,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.classics
Subject: Re: Plato's Views on Women
Keywords: Plato, politics, women, feminism
Date: 6 Nov 92 16:11:53 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

koc5@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
| >As a newcomer to women's studies and to feminist philosophy I could also use 
| >refernces to the most important recent work.  The University of Chicago,
| >where I attend, seems unusually benighted in its lack of a women's studies
| >department or even a women's studies bibliographer.

brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
| Since you are just getting started, I would think that the first order of
| bussiness ought to be to seriously question whether "feminist philosophy"
| is a valid field of study.  In my view, to place sex at such a 
| fundamental position in one's way of thinking is simply absurd.
| ...

Brian, you haven't done the reading.  I suggest -- in the case
of feminism -- you peruse some of the philosophical works 
periodically listed in the soc.feminism newsgroup.  Surely
it must occur to you that what you call sex must have
considerable importance if it was the basis of shutting half
of the human race out of most of what we fondly call 
history.
-- 

 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Xref: sparky soc.women:19335 alt.feminism:4185 soc.men:19085
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Date: 11 Nov 92 09:18:38
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
Distribution: usa
	<11NOV199210045505@mary.fordham.edu>
	<MUFFY.92Nov11075211@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<1992Nov11.162826.14780@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: krw@cbnewsk.cb.att.com's message of Wed, 11 Nov 1992 16:28:26 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.162826.14780@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> krw@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (keith.r.smith) writes:
>In article <MUFFY.92Nov11075211@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>In article <11NOV199210045505@mary.fordham.edu> nissim@mary.fordham.edu (Leonard J. Nissim) writes:
>>>In article <1992Nov11.070434.14395@dragon.acadiau.ca>, 
>>>Nobody ever put a gun to my head and said "Watch this or else!"  
>>>Every television set I've ever seen has an "off" switch.
[my discussion of the myriad other places that ads are placed in our
everyday lives]
>I guess that rules out the beach, the public swimming pool, the health club,
>the nite club, the beauty parlor, the mall, any women's sporting event, the
>ballet, or any other type of dance performance that might involve women, or
>any other place or event where you might perchance see living, breathing human
>beings that just happen to approximate the look of the women in the ads, and
>therefore make you feel uncomfortable.

*LAUGH*...oh, my.  Well, actually, I can't look in the mirror, then,
either, because *I* happen to approximate the look of the women in the
ads (I'm tall, thin, reasonably attractive, etc.)  In fact, my SO was
just saying the other day that he was looking at Playboy and wondering
why the women in there didn't look as good as me...*grin*.

Anyway, dear, you miss the point.  The point is not that I object to the
look of the women in the ads, the point is that it is ridiculous to
claim that anyone can avoid all ads, especially simply by turning off
the television.

>Get a life... Please!

*grin*...what an amazing argument.  Did you have to think very hard to
come up with that?

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
~Weavers' fingers flying on the loom/patterns shift too fast to be
 discerned/all these years of thinking/ended up like this/in front
 of all this beauty/understanding nothing~ - Bruce Cockburn
Xref: sparky soc.women:19378 soc.men:19125
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: Was Clinton's victory America's message to the Anti-Choice?
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com (Michael Rivero)
Date: 11 Nov 92 15:59:18 PDT
Distribution: na
Organization: M&E (Division of EDS), Cypress CA

In article <1992Nov6.184928.3408@cbnews.cb.att.com>, lib@cbnews.cb.att.com (Lib) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov6.183726.12720@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
|> >>
|> >>Don't know how many justices he'll get to appoint in his 4 years, though...
|> >
|> >Not a flame, just my $.02, the justices already on the court were appointed
|> >for a lifetime term, so Clinton can't appoint any new people until one of
|> >them retires.
|> 
|> Which is why he said he doesn't know how many Clinton will get
|> to appoint, but you stated the obvious with great clarity.
|> 

  Three of the Justices have stated intent to retire within the next 4 years.



<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com  "Middle-aged Mutant Ninja Animator" |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|     This is my last week at EDS (mdcbbs.com) and since I am planning   |
|    to run the animation shop as a full-time business (unless a higher  |
|    paying job comes along) I will be off the net for the near future.  |
|    I want to thank all the posters, my net-friends, and even my        |
|    net-enemies for having made this last year a most interesting and   |
|    colorful time!                                                      |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
From: jth4@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JON T. HUTCHINSON)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Am I "exploiting" this woman?
Date: 13 Nov 92 21:06:40 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Nov10.165916.24162@cbnews.cb.att.com>, lib@cbnews.cb.att.com (Li
b) writes:
>In article <1992Nov7.142905.24479@cbnewsh.cb.att.com> rfs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (r
ichard.f.j.soyack) writes:
>>This whole thing started because some guy saw some woman at a
>>party wearing clothes he found stimulating.  When I read this,
>>and now, my first thought was why didn't he go up and talk to
>>her?  That's what I would have done.
>
>You're so shallow.
>
that's what I would have done. Maybe that's what she was waiting for.
-- 
________________________________________________________________________

Jon T. Hutchinson, Network Coordinator
Office of Telecommunications
office 215-758-5099
fax    215-758-6127
Xref: sparky soc.women:18958 talk.politics.theory:4761 sci.philosophy.tech:3939 sci.philosophy.meta:2389 sci.classics:929
From: gwangung@byron.u.washington.edu (Roger Tang)
Subject: Re: Get a CLUE, a LARGE CLUE
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 17:42:55 GMT

In article <1doh4kINNaie@transfer.stratus.com> dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber) writes:
>So semantic handwaving aside, is the one any worse than the other?  I have a
>real problem with that, because it makes the good/evil of something you do
>dependent on the situation. 

	Is that a problem?

	Is blowing someone away randomly on the street equivalent to blowing
someone away who's invading your home with intent to kill you?

	Same action, different situation.

-- 
	"I got into theatre originally to pick up girls. Unfortunately, all I
found were women..."
e-mail:  gwangung@u.washington.edu
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 14:48:35 GMT

In article <1dpur5INNdff@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>charleen@ADS.COM (Charleen Bunjiovianna) writes:
>
>>>I jsut don't understand this.  Do youmean that your love for the
>>>child is conditional on whether its DNA matches yours?
>
>>I don't understand this either.  Do you mean you won't mind if the
>>nurses switch babies on you in the hospital after you've given birth?
>
>If I had raised a child for a number of years, and then one day received
>a phone call "Gee, Ms Peri, we're very sorry, but little Timmy is really
>not your child.  Little Jimmy here is."  Would I be so quick to trade
>Timmy for Jimmy?  I don't know.  It would certainly be a heart-wrenching 
>decision.
>
>Would you be so quick to trade?


What if the hospital didn't know where *your* genetic child was?
You'd probably be forced, legally, to give Timmy up.

How would you feel if the courts decided you had enough of a bond
to Timmy, and had established willingness for such a long time,
that you should *then* help pay Timmy's destitute mother to raise him?

(This is clearly unlikely (!), but it is a closer equivalent to 
a man's legal position.)

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: soc.women,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men,misc.legal