HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: steve@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au (Steve Balogh (+61 3 565 4747))
Subject: Re: Unisex bathrooms
Organization: Monash University, Melbourne, AUSTRALIA
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 02:17:01 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.151012.21340@cbfsb.cb.att.com> colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:
>
>           So why one MEN and one WOMEN?  Why not two bathrooms and
>you do your stuff?

Perhaps women don't like sitting on seats that inconsiderate men have urinated
on. Perhaps they are scared of getting pregnant from the toilet seat. ;-)

>NONE!  But there were 12 guys all hopping on one foot outside the MEN door.

What was wrong with using the nearby tree. I remember (also many years ago) when
a busload of guys had to do their thing and so the bus pulled over onto the side
of the road, we all got out and lined up with our backs to the highway, and then
did our thing. Thinking about it now, the site of 20 guys lined up doing their
thing does seem a little funny. :-)

I am not sure what this has to do with feminism. Sorry.

>the ladies room (alone) and went on our way.  The question is not
>why we did that - but why the other guys didn't.

I sometimes wonder if there are any laws about using the 'bathrooms' of the
opposite gender.

Regards,
         Steve

----_--_-_-_--_-__-_------_-__---_-___-_----_-____-_-_--__-_--_--___-_-_-_--__-_
Steve Balogh  VK3YMY   (Maths G.14)   | steve@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au
Monash University, Clayton Campus     |      37 54'38.8"S  145 07'47.1"E ...ICBM
Wellington Road, Clayton.  	      |      +61 3 565 4747 Voice (Office)
Melbourne, AUSTRALIA. 3168	      |      +61 3 565 4746 Fax
From: slarsen@schumann.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Some Politically Incorrect questions
Date: 27 Aug 92 13:59:39 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame

In article <1992Aug26.232508.4937@unixg.ubc.ca> schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz) writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.220608.28311@leland.Stanford.EDU>
>farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>
>>And yet 2/3 of American women between 21 and 44 work outside the home.
>
>The question, as I recall, was whether women, given the choice, would
>consent to the breadwinning role for husband and family, while allowing
>the husband to be a stay-at-home father.
>
>Now, it doesn't make much sense to ask whether women at the low end of
>the income scale are in such a marriage, right?  They don't have the
>economic luxury to make such a choice.  My figures were strictly from
>the high end.  In other words, in the professions where women are
>making more than enough to support husband and family, those doing so
>are vanishingly rare.  At the same time, men at the high end -are- the
>sole breadwinner most of the time.

Isn't this sort of like studying the royalty of the middle ages and 
then using their lives as an example of day-to-day medieval life? 
Kind of skews reality, doesn't it?

The professions where men are making more than enough to support the 
family are vanishing.... and this is true in the lives of the 
middle and lower classes, a much, much larger slice of the population 
than physicians.

BTW, this lower class woman spent four years supporting a husband 
and child.  It happens and it happens a heck of a lot more often 
than your physician stats would suggest.  

Sue Larsen
slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic)
Subject: Re: Men's Issues Newsbrie
Organization: TFS
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 13:26:50 GMT

So sorry. I am a reductionist; I like to prune worthless trees.
Will we like to begin living in a society sufficiently healthy,
that we don't have to niggle over worthless issues as what does
or does not constitute petty rape (which is of course rape nonetheless?)
If he or she says, before the fact, do NOT, and you do, it is rape.
If he or she says, after the fact, it was rape, it was not rape.
Okay?
And if they change their mind after the fact - then it is rape of those
accused of rape, and decidely unethical.

I'd like to hear how we have gotten to where every fucking thing we do,
gets analysed to damn bits. People no longer seem to realize their ethics
do not depend upon an external consensus, and this bothers me greatly.

Look for the simpler solutions, PLEASE.
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.feminism
From: sklautky@vaxa.weeg.uiowa.edu (Stephen Klautky)
Subject: Re: Feminists ignore Cosmetics?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 06:56:00 GMT

In article <BtywGK.M6J@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
slaury@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Susan Laury) writes:

>On the other hand, I've known men to claim they like women
>without makeup but future statements reveal this to be false.

This depends on how the question was asked and in my case I
have seen my answer misinterpreted.

For instance, when asked the question above I say "Of course,
I like women without makeup."

Then sometime later the woman wears some makeup; I react
positively by commenting on her appearance.  She says "How come
you're looking at me that way now?  I thought you didn't care if
I wore makeup?"

I never said that makeup cannot enhance the image of a woman
in *my* eyes.  I only said that I can like, be attracted to, and
love a woman who does not wear makeup.  She meant - would you
look at a woman the same way with makeup as without.

So, I have a question for you feminist or feminist-leaning
women.  Are you bothered that a man appreciates the look of a
woman in makeup better than without makeup?


-=] Steve [=-     SKLAUTKY@VAXA.WEEG.UIOWA.EDU
From: slarsen@monet.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Woody and Mia
Date: 26 Aug 92 21:23:26 GMT
Organization: University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame

In article <1992Aug26.111606.1@mdcbbs.com> rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:
>
>
>  What you say may indeed be true for the Polygraph. However, there are far
>more modern methods such as the PSE, or Psychological Stress Evaluator. Having
>worked with this device myself, I can attest to it's value not only as a lie
>detector, but as a powerful tool for psychotherepists in dealing with
>surpressed memories.
>
Michael,

I've never heard of this device before.  Could you give a brief 
description of what it is and how it works?  Thanks!

Sue Larsen
slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu
From: N020BA@tamvm1.tamu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Women as Crazy as Men Behind Wheel (sorta long)
Date: 4 Sep 92 16:47:14 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M University


    Note this post is close-captioned for the humor and irony impaired
 
>In article <1992Aug28.114046.4185@linus.mitre.org> cgates@mitre.org (Curt Gates) writes:
>>Copyrighted material published in Boston Herald, Aug. 27.  Reproduced
>>without permission.
>>
>>If you ve been tailgated, run off the road or been given the middle finger
>>by a surly young female driver lately, the following will not come as a
>>surprise: Women aged 16-24 are becoming as aggressive as their male
>>counterparts behind the wheel.             ^^^^^^^^^^|^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                                                       |
       Those evil men! Corrupting the womyn!! It's Reagan's fault!
>>
>>They re committing the same bad-driver behaviors as young men do -- they
>>speed, they re discourteous and they may use vehicles as outlets for anger
>>or expressions of power, says James Malfetti, who is studying gender
>>differences among young drivers for the American Automobile Association
>>Foundation for Traffic Research ...
 
      What! Malfetti dares to study womyn! How can this phallic oppressor
understand the poor downtrodden females? He's a man, a rapist by nature and
a harasser!! Why I bet he likes womyn to wear bras! I bet he's married
-tricked some poor womyn into being his slave! And he has SEX! Doesn't
he know that all sex is rape? Or that marriage is slavery? Insensitive
brute!!!
 
>>In two of nine states Malfetti studied, young female drivers loss-ratio
>>rate -- the amount of money insurance companies receive in premiums vs.
>>what they pay out in claims -- exceeded that of young men.
 
    And I bet some horrible phallic opressor rapist lecher MAN is going to
insist that they pay MORE for insurance! This is discrimination of the
worst kind!!  This is violence against womyn! This is oppression!
 
>>Malfetti suspects several causes: Women are driving more, they re driving
>>to and from places where alcohol is served, and women s roles have changed
>>-- they re doing more things they used to depend on males to do...
 
    Note:this post has heavy sarcasm. Please regard it as such.
 
 
========================================================================
The truth may hurt, but lies hurt more.  | My opinions are mine and mine
The difference between left-wing incomp- | alone. I speak for myself and
etance and right-wing incompetance is    | no-one else.
the difference between cat #$!& and dog  |______________________________
#$!&. Reply to N020BA@tamvm1.tamu.edu.        Bill and Opus in '92!!
Xref: sparky soc.men:15725 soc.women:15974 alt.child-support:2991
From: twain@milton.u.washington.edu (Barbara Hlavin)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Lawyer Speak
Date: 31 Aug 92 02:22:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Aug31.022244.11982
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Aug30.224457.9486@u.washington.edu> hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress) writes:
>Barbara Hlavin writes


"MR EUSTRESS" SAID THIS REGARDING WOODY ALLEN'S ADOPTIVE PARENT STATUS:

>> > [Woody Allen] wasn't forced INTO it.
>> > But he's forced to REMAIN in it.

I SAID THIS

>> Huh?  He sued for sole custody of three of the children, two of 
>> them adopted.  
>>      Doesn't sound to me as if he's being forced to remain an adoptive 
>> parent against his will.
>
>   You must not be familiar with custody battles.
>   Even if Woody was *VERY* lucky and won 
>   *evenly-split* visitation -- the courts (god) 
>   designates only one to be the "primary care taker". 
>   Woody would be grossly lucky to get 49.999% visitation.


That isn't what you were talking about. 

You were asserting that Woody Allen was going to be forced, against 
his will, to be an adoptive parent. 

I cited the current case, in which he was suing for custody of his 
adopted children, as evidence that he wanted those children. 

Mia Farrow has never asked for a dime in alimony or child support from 
anyone she's ever been married to or emotionally involved with, and I 
have no reason to believe she wants any form of financial support from
nWoody Allen. 

If you have reason for such a belief, please share your information 
with the rest of us. 

(By the way, I find it insensitive, to be nice about it, that you equate 
being pressured to support your child with rape.) 





t
Xref: sparky soc.men:15894 soc.women:16121 alt.feminism:548
From: dsvoss@isr.harvard.edu (Steve Voss)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Feminists ignore Cosmetics?
Date: 3 Sep 92 21:36:37 GMT
Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

Jeff Dalton asks whether my friends explicitly considered minimal
makeup versus no makeup.  My answer is yes, I phrased the question
that way -- what do they prefer.  Of course, Ms. Laury's response
to me probably was true.  You can't assume they were telling the
truth.  After all, makeup is "fake," and we don't like to think
of ourselves as selecting the fake even if we do.  On the other hand,
some of my friends are Deadheads, and others are Southerners who have
developed an aversion to the crap because women down there wear so
much (I am an example).  So I suspect their answers were accurate,
but my study "unscientific" because of selection bias.

For the record, the thing I hate most is the stuff called "foundation."
I don't mind eyeshadow -- it can be fun -- or maybe eyeliner, although
I'd just as soon not see it as see it.  But foundation makes me
want to retch.

You know, women in royal families used to wear makeup constantly, and
very thickly.  Academics have questioned whether their faces had rotted
underneath the many layers (which never were removed, apparently).
steve
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: slarsen@schumann.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Some Politically Incorrect questions
Date: 27 Aug 92 20:20:19 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame

In article <1992Aug27.174843.28302@unixg.ubc.ca> schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.135939.12517@news.nd.edu>
>slarsen@schumann.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:
>
>Perhaps you weren't following the discussion. The question is How much
>harder is it for men to be a stay-at-home father?  As you note, the
>state of the economy makes it difficult for both sexes.  I'm saying
>there's a deeper underlying factor that makes it considerably more
>unrealistic for men, regardless of the economy.  That's the fact
>that women who -are- in a position to be breadwinner overwhelmingly
>choose not to be (unlike men).  Obviously, the only stats that are
>relevant to this claim are those for higher earners.

I would agree with the contention that men are more subject to 
the *expectation* that they perform the breadwinner role however
this certainly does not mean that women are somehow unwilling 
to act as the breadwinner.  Were I to use this sort of logic, I 
would be claiming that men are somehow unwilling to give up 
the role of breadwinner and are themselves choosing to cling 
to a role that they feel gives them the upperhand in a marriage.
I could further claim that the more "under-employed" 
his mate is, the more firm is the man's belief that he must 
maintain supremacy in his marital relationship!  

In looking at the lower and middle class marriages, there are 
myriad examples of women as higher, primary, and sole wage 
earners in their families.  What this tells me is that women
can be and are just as committed to the financial well-being 
of the family unit as are their men.

Pressure to conform to gender role expectations are great, for 
both men and women.  Now that the economics that supported the 
ideals of man as breadwinner and woman as homemaker are breaking 
down, we see evidence in the front lines, in the lives of the 
common John and Jane Does, that these roles are not carved in 
stone. 

>>BTW, this lower class woman spent four years supporting a husband 
>>and child.  It happens and it happens a heck of a lot more often 
>>than your physician stats would suggest.  
>
>Hmmm.  And just above you said these families are 'vanishing.'
>Now I'm confused.  ;^>

Vanishing and extinct are not the same thing :)

>The fact that men are more amenable to the sole-breadwinner role than
>women, in general, is so apparent I'm surprised it needs to be
>defended.  Perhaps we should start another debate on whether somebody
>killed Jimmy Hoffa.

I'm confused.  Are you claiming that men are forced into being 
breadwinners or are you claiming that they are willing volunteers?

Sue Larsen
slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu
Xref: sparky soc.men:15901 soc.women:16125
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: "A Feminist" (was Re: Barbara H.)
Date: 3 Sep 92 23:11:00 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: Living In Harmony

In article <1992Sep3.162148.22963@javelin.sim.es.com> 
biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel) writes:

>Anyone who calls herself a feminist is presumed to be one. The burden of
>disproof is upon the skeptic. That puts G. Steinem and A. Dworkin in the
>same category, ludicrous as that may be. It's also inconvenient for most
>feminists, and provides ready ammunition for the snipers from the sidelines.

>It's a common burden with any ideological movement: the Maoists have
>Sendero Luminoso, the Republicans have David Duke, the National Socialists

Bush called republicans to vote for a democrat against Duke.

I don't remember any similar call from the main-stream feminist
leadership with respect to Dworkin's anti-porno laws, can you
point out a reference?
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Men's Issues Newsbrief
Organization: my opinions only
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 22:23:00 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.170748.18778@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
>In article <10478@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul) writes:
>)Seth Breidbart writes
>)
>)+ All of the women I've dated have fingers, toes, tongues, breasts, and
>)+ other appendages capable of penetrating my mouth.  YMMV
>)
>)Do you know any cops personally? As an experiment, see what their
>)reaction is to "I was raped by a woman!".
>)
>)I betcha they'll say: What? You were raped by a WHAT? *snicker*
>
>Yes, I'd also like to see you explain to a cop that you were raped because
>a woman stuck her finger or tounge in your mouth during foreplay and you
>didn't give her explicit permission beforehand.
>
>Please record your conversation & post it to the net! :-)
>
>I'd bet you'd find that you didn't have a leg to stand on legally, either.
>
>If she stuck her finger up your rectum, you might have an actual  legal case,
>but I'd still like to see the conversation with the cop - I'd bet you'd have
>a *whole lot* of difficulty getting that case prosecuted.  And if you did
>get it prosecuted, why, I'd bet it was thrown out of court.
>
>So, yes, the law is sexixst in practice regardless of whether it may or may
>not be theoretically gender neutral (I don't think it is even close, BTW).

There were two purposes to my post:

1. To point out to the original poster that the ruling could, on its
face, apply to both men and women.

2. To point out how ridiculous that ruling was.

I think I succeeded in both :-)

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: samurai@homer.cs.mcgill.ca (Darcy Brockbank)
Subject: Re: The poor duchess
Reply-To: samurai@uriel.cs.mgill.ca
Organization: SOCS, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 18:02:47 GMT

In article <2321@devnull.mpd.tandem.com> dwelch@mpd.tandem.com (Dan Welch)  
writes:
> In article <1992Aug26.162424.645@cs.mcgill.ca> samurai@uriel.cs.mgill.ca  
writes:
> 
> >Because she's the Duchess of York.
> 
> Not any longer, she isn't.  They are officially divorced.
> 


When??? I thought they were only separated!

- db

Newsgroups: soc.men
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Men's Issues Newsbrief
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 05:40:07 GMT

In article <Btz6r0.2ss@belay> buick@belay (Patrick D. Buick) writes:
>In article <Btr1zD.59@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug29.040317.18445@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:

[World According To Garp deleted]

>>>
>>>Is this rape?  He never consented.  He was not penetrated.
>>
>>
>>I don't know if it's rape or not, but it would make a great story line!
>>
>>;-)
>>
>>Don
>>-- 
>>beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
>
>I don't know if you have *ever* followed any rape cases etc.. but
>penetration is *not* a requirement.. sheesh..  I hope you were
>joking... but I didn't see anything indicating humour...

I assume the "you" isn't referring to me.  You might be more careful
with your editing - thanks.

>Patrick D. Buick EMT, EET  | Internet: buick%belay@uunet.uu.net

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: samurai@homer.cs.mcgill.ca (Darcy Brockbank)
Subject: Re: Men's Issues Newsbrie
Reply-To: samurai@uriel.cs.mgill.ca
Organization: SOCS, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 17:17:22 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.192529.22822@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu  
(Ted Frank) writes:
> In article <1992Aug25.124923.20482@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves  
<goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
> >mikep@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Mike Powell) writes...
> >MP> "We conclude that any act of sexual penetration engaged in by the  
defendant
> >MP> without the affirmative and freely given permission of the victim to the
> >MP> specific act of penetration constitutes the offense of sexual assault,"
> >MP> Justice Alan B. Handler said in writing the opinion on behalf of a  
unanimous
> >MP> court.
> >
> >Notice also that this judgement ONLY includes men as defendents, ie., "any
> >act of penetration engaged in by the defendent" can ONLY be done by men,
> >since only men can penetrate.  
> 
> Note also that when someone says "All X is Y" that does not mean that
> "All not-X is not-Y."

Note also that the relation "constitutes" can mean either

X R Y => X < Y    ( X is a subset (major part of) Y)

or

X R Y => ( y E Y => x E X  && y !E Y => y !E X )   ( X is all of Y )

So, "any act of penetration engaged in by the defendent constitutes
sexual assauly" can mean that penetration is a fundamental, or major
part of sexual assualt, OR the entire defintion of sexual assault.
It's an ambigous term, and I'd bet that he meant the first interpretation.

- db


> -- 
>              ......................................................
>              ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | std disclaimers
>              the university of chicago law skool, chicago, illinois
>              it's log!  log!  log!  it's big, it's heavy, it's wood

--
-------
I always thought that NeXTStep was very good in its approach to color since
the tasteless are protected from their own stupidity. -- Jason Breckenridge
(I know Jason, Jason is a close personal friend of mine, and I am not Jason!)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support
From: hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.rape,alt.child-support
Subject: "Tasteless and insensitive"
Date: 1 Sep 92 00:22:51 GMT
Organization: University of Washington

Roger Tang writes
> (MrEuStress) writes:
> > I am outraged that you advocate force (rape) as
> > a valid way of accruing child support when
> > their are so many better ways to support
> > the child.
> Tasteless as well as insensitive.

  You're right 
  -- financial rape is "Tasteless and insensitive".
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.feminism
From: crussel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Carol A Russell)
Subject: Re: Feminists ignore Cosmetics?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 18:50:05 GMT

As a feminist I don't see what is wrong with decorating our bodies or our faces
in order to have fun, as part of a ritual, to improve our appearance, or 
whatever.  The problem comes
when we feel we *have* to look a certain way, or cover up our imperfections, in
order to please *someone else*.  And in our Western society we consider it
oppression for women to have to cover their faces and bodies because their
Eastern, male-dominated society deems those bodily parts to be unclean, or
unfit for looking at in public.

I've read Naomi Wolfe, and don't see how a woman who believes what she does 
would use cosmetics or jewelry as anything but something *she* enjoys.  I doubt
if she decorates herself for anyone but herself.  Which is the reason that 
sometimes I wear makeup and jewelry, sometimes I don't.  Depends on the mood.
Not what I think someone else (i.e. a male) wants me to do.

carol
Newsgroups: soc.men