HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: baltman@prodigal.psych.rochester.edu (Brian Altman)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.motss,soc.misc,soc.men,soc.college.grad,soc.college,soc.bi,sci.psychology,rec.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.personals,misc.misc
Subject: What adjectives do you think best describe romantic jealousy?
Date: 5 Oct 92 23:35:46 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester (Rochester, NY)

I am putting together a survey on romantic jealousy. I'd like to include a
part where I'd have 10-20 adjectives that people commonly associate with
romantic jealousy and their feelings. A couple of examples I can think of
off the top of my head are: angry, upset, lonely. I'd like to get a few
from a few dozen people so I can compile a list of the most common for use
on the survey.

The survey will be completed in around 2-3 weeks and I will be sending a
paper version to hopefully a few hundred people. It will consist of around
35 quick "check the box" questions, and 2 or 3 write a sentence or two
items. I will include a self addressed stamped envelope with the survey
(which can also be faxed back). I'd like to get responses of people from  
every sexual orientation and age. My only requirement is that you currently
are in a relationship with a "significant other" in some way for over two
weeks.

SO. Please help a poor soul earn his degree and volunteer.

If there are not many volunteers I will implement an incentive raffle. Each
person returning the questionaire gets 1 chance to win $50. If I do have to
do this, the people who volunteer (and return) the survey before I do this
will recieve 2 chances vs. one for those volunteering later.

Thanx a whole bunch :)

P.S.- all you have to do to volunteer is e-mail me your address; I will
      acknowledge you within 24 hours for the most part.

P.P.S.- all volunteers' results and data will be kept strictly confidential.
        your results will be assigned a code based on your sex and sexual
        orientation, at which point your name will forever be removed from
        the data. I will keep a seperate list of names and addresses so
        that I can later contact you and let you know about the results.

-Brian
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,soc.men
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Guilty of ... Thoughtcrime!
X-To: JANICE KENDALL
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1992 00:56:00 GMT


kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall) writes...

JK>  You proved my point well enough.  Pregnancy is a physical threat to the
JK>  woman's health and life

Actually, I've seen many statistics showing that pregnancy is no greater a
risk for women than the operation to terminate one.


JK> - and so are some men.

/* set parody on */  (Yes, allow even *me* to be sarcastic for once, eh?)
So are some women, I would imagine.
/* set parody off */


JK>  If I became impregnated by a violent man that I was trying to escape -
JK>  I'd sure as hell not tell him about the pregnancy nor the abortion...
JK>  ever.

Fine, but would you have made consensual love with a man you knew to be
violent?  I doubt it.


JK>  Your last sentence sounds like you expect to be forgiven if you murder
JK>  a woman who aborted your baby.

No....  I am not a violent person, but there are *many* things that can
undo a non-violent person.  I wrote from the context of "What if?", rather
than to say that I was actually serious.  I was speaking from anger, but I
never actually threatened her.

She, however, threatened *me* three times.  Just *who* is the violent
person here?  Me, who dared to have *thoughts* of it, or her, who actually
*threatened* me three times?  You decide.


JK>  Sometimes, in the anti-abortion debate, I get the feeling that the fetus
JK>  has a higher status - because it just might be a male...
                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This is a little stereotypical.  Still, some more radical "pro life" people
might also reply that "pro choice" people are wrong to give the woman a
higher status, rather than giving *both* an *equal* status.  (Of course, we
all know that this is impossible).

And incidentally, people who are "pro-life" ALSO oppose abortion used for
sex selection, whose victims are primarily *female*, so I would say that your
argument that pro-lifers are biased towards saving males, is somewhat of a
white elephant.

This is also an interesting subject matter... How can "pro choice" people
oppose abortion after a sex determination, if they are in favour of abortion
"for any reason and no apologies"?  Will they oppose sex determination solely
because "it just might be a female"?

But if one *is* "pro choice" *and* opposes abortion after a sex determination,
then the question arises : What do these people *really* believe?  - In being
Pro-Choice, or Pro-Choice-Only-If-It's-A-Choice-We-Agree-With?

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * If winning isn't important then why keep score?
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: The Politics Of Appeasement
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 18:24:57 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.161757.5779@news.nd.edu> slarsen@titian.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:

)I've always heard AA described as assisting "women and minorities".  That 
)phrase does not imply that women are a minority, just that they are 
)considered, along with ethnic minorities, in need of affirmative action. 

I've *never* heard men referred to as a 'minority' though.  Even though they
do compose less than half of the population.  It's rare to hear women 
referred to as 'a majority' too, though that is also technically correct.
It's part of the same thing, I think.

Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism
From: charles@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Charles Jacob Cohen)
Subject: Mattel and math avoidance in girls
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor, MI
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 20:39:19 GMT

I think this got posted elsewhere, but just in case:

     According to the Wall Street Journal this morning, Mattel is selling
     a product called "Teen Talk Barbie" which says 4 phrases.  One of the 
     phrases is "Math class is hard".  I can't imagine a product better
     designed to program math avoidance into little girls.  We've all heard
     many times how math avoidance limits women's educational opportunities
     and career choices.  Mattel justifies this product by saying something
     like they aren't saying the other classes are easy, and that they have
     a doll availble that says "I want to be a doctor".  I'm sure we all
     wish Barbie good luck on achieving her goal of becoming a doctor
     without any math skills.  If you have views on this subject that
     you would like to share with the Mattel company, you can call
     1-800-421-2887 or write to Mattel at 330 Continental Blvd.,
     El Secundo, Ca. 90245.

- Chuck
 
-- 
"I do not feel obliged to believe that same God who endowed us with sense,
reason, and intellect, had intended for us to forgo their use." - Galileo
"I'm an engineer, not a dictionary!" - Me
Xref: sparky soc.women:17142 soc.men:17053
From: larry@ducktales.med.ge.com (Larry Landwehr)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: The Politics Of Appeasement
Date: 29 Sep 92 13:47:57 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: GE Medical Systems, Magnetic Resonance

In article <1992Sep29.011341.2517@leland.Stanford.EDU>,
    farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
 
> Something like 40,000 American women die each year from breast cancer.
.
.
.
 
1) Women's issues get more than their fair share of media and money.
 
2) It is illogical to allocate a disproportionate share of resources to
   groups who need it the least. I feel the same way about giving all old 
   people free medical care while many kids do without. I expect to get
   old some day.
 
3) You missed the main point of the paper which is "the politics of
   appeasement".
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Property, Patriarchy, and all that (was: women in engineering)
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com (Michael Rivero)
Date: 29 Sep 92 15:45:26 PDT
 <SK73171.92Sep26110127@korppi.cs.tut.fi> <1992Sep26.165822.28426@midway.uchicago.edu>
Distribution: world
Organization: M&E (Division of EDS), Cypress CA

In article <1992Sep26.165822.28426@midway.uchicago.edu>, mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (Rini Clarkberg) writes:
|> sk73171@cs.tut.fi (Kiiskil{ Sami) writes:
|> 
|> >Since men
|> >unlike women need family also by emotional reasons and not only for
|> >sex or money, there will be some way to undergo this problem. 
|> 
|> I nominate this for the most ridiculous, stupid, and sexist remark made
|> this month....
|> 
|> 
|> rini



  I second.






 
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero        rivero@dev8j.mdcbbs.com     "A Human's Human!"  |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|                       I CAME,  I SAW,  I DIVORCED                      |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Newsgroups: soc.women
From: schg_ki@tpki.toppoint.de (Ralf Schiering)
Subject: radical nurses/CASSANDRA
Organization: Toppoint Mailbox e.V.
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 1992 17:49:40 GMT


By reading the German translation of Mary Daly; Pure Lust [Boston 1984],
Beacon Press I found a short notice on a

        network of radical feminstic nurses: CASSANDRA

As address was mentioned

        CASSANDRA
        P.O. Box 341
        Williamsville
        N.Y. 14221

Is there anybody who can give me additional informations on this
group or a relevant organisation for nurses and medical interested
feminists.

---------------------------------------------------------
Jutta-Andrea Hollstein  |e-mail: schg_ki@tpki.toppoint.de
Helsinkistr. 88         |        100112,447  (CompuServe)
2300 Kiel 1             |--------------------------------
Germany                 |Tel. +49-431-521822 (voice)
---------------------------------------------------------


-- 

---------------------------------------------------------
Ralf Schiering          |e-mail: schg_ki@tpki.toppoint.de
Helsinkistr. 88         |        100112,447  (CompuServe)
2300 Kiel 1             |--------------------------------
Germany                 |Tel. +49-431-521822 (voice)
---------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Guilty of ... STUPIDITY!
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 19:37:53 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.182157.12461@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
>In article <nyikos.717909582@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>In <Bv8z4z.86I@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>
>
>>>You seem to conveniently and persistently ignore the proposal that 
>>>a woman need not inform her husband if it poses a danger to her.
>
>Who determines that informing her husband poses a danger to her. The
>courts?

Yes.

 [story of murder after wife left husband]

>Do you really think that women should leave their lives in the hands of
>people like that?

For that kind of question, I'd respond,
     When did you stop beating your husband?

Do you have an anecdote about a man killing a woman because she got
pregnant and had children against his will?  Would such a story
mean that men should not be informed that they have children?

Would you agree that any murder story in which the murderer was upset
about some given information  would imply that such information need
not be given?  If your boss fires you, are you entitled to two weeks'
notice?  If your bank repossesses the house, are you entitled to move
out first?  

Perhaps if such violence occurs more often among African-Americans, 
we should have a law that says only African-Americans need not be informed 
of information to which other people have a right?  I don't think so.


The principle that a man is guilty until proven innocent is not one I accept.

The principle of treating all humans as potential murderers is not 
one I accept.

The principle of treating all men unequally with respect to women
on the basis of a minority of extreme cases is not one I accept.

As long as husbands must foot the bill for child support without choice
(and as long as sterility remains grounds for immediate divorce), they 
should have the right to full knowledge of reproductive matters.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Mattel and math avoidance in girls
Date: 29 Sep 92 22:15:37 GMT
Followup-To: soc.women
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Sep29.203919.2777@zip.eecs.umich.edu>, charles@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Charles Jacob Cohen) writes:

>      If you have views on this subject that
>      you would like to share with the Mattel company, you can call
>      1-800-421-2887 or write to Mattel at 330 Continental Blvd.,
>      El Secundo, Ca. 90245.

Send them the ultimate message.  Don't buy their product! ;-)

Terry
-- 
        INTERNET: tjw+@pitt.edu         BITNET: TJW@PITTVMS
"Laugh while you can, Monkey Boy!"                        - Lord "John" Warfin
"There can be only one!"                                  - The Highlander
"There should have been only one. I want my money back!"  - Terry
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,soc.men
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Mattel and math avoidance in girls
Date: 2 Oct 92 00:54:14 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

dwelch@mpd.tandem.com (Dan Welch) writes:

>>"Teen Talk Barbie" which says...
>>"Math class is hard".

>It does seem bad, and I think that they could come up with a
>lot of other things for Barbie to say.  On the other hand, I can't help
>but ponder the fact that 99% of all girls who own Barbie dolls aren't
>at an age when math classes are optional, so avoiding them doesn't seem
>to be possible.  The other 1%, I would presume, should be mature enough
>to not take career planning advice from a doll.

>Also, math class *is* hard, for the majority of students.  I never had
>problems with it, but I know lots of people who had trouble with even
>basic algebra.  

The question is not over whether or not math is hard.  For some people
it is, and for some it's a piece of cake.

The problem is that Mattel is promoting a negative stereotype of women
and discouraging little children (I don't assume that only girls would
play with the dolls) from doing their very best in math class.  

I phoned Mattel to express my dismay at their choice of phrases.
They defended their choice by stating that Barbi says lots of other
things too, like "school is fun".  They also pointed out that 
Barbi is blonde.  I fail to see what any of these things have anything
to do with excusing Mattel's glirification of math phobia.

							--  Michal
From: dwelch@mpd.tandem.com (Dan Welch)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Mattel and math avoidance in girls
Date: 1 Oct 92 15:04:41 GMT
Organization: Tandem Computers (MPD) Austin, TX

In article <1992Sep29.203919.2777@zip.eecs.umich.edu> charles@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Charles Jacob Cohen) writes:
>According to the Wall Street Journal this morning, Mattel is selling
>a product called "Teen Talk Barbie" which says 4 phrases.  One of the 
>phrases is "Math class is hard".

I've been thinking about this for the last day or so, since it first
appeared.  It does seem bad, and I think that they could come up with a
lot of other things for Barbie to say.  On the other hand, I can't help
but ponder the fact that 99% of all girls who own Barbie dolls aren't
at an age when math classes are optional, so avoiding them doesn't seem
to be possible.  The other 1%, I would presume, should be mature enough
to not take career planning advice from a doll.

Also, math class *is* hard, for the majority of students.  I never had
problems with it, but I know lots of people who had trouble with even
basic algebra.  I don't think that I would want my children playing with
toys that totally ignore the reality of the world.

Then again, having said all that, I still wouldn't buy a Barbie for my
(at the present fictional, or maybe theoretical) daughter.

Daniel Welch
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (Rini Clarkberg)
Subject: Re: Support for young women in science
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 20:55:47 GMT


First, Rohit Parikh argues:

>    Let us consider two groups for such a purpose.
>
>    (A)  A group in which high school girls interested in Science would be
>    able to communicate with female and only female graduate students and
>    scientists.
>
>    (B)  A group in which high school girls interested in Science would be
>    able to communicate with both male and female graduate students and
>    scientists.
>
>         I fail to see what group (A) could possibly achieve for the  young
>    woman that group  (B) could not.   

But then he goes on to say:
 
>         In many universities these days, I understand that black students
>    tend to sit with other black students in the cafetaria and white
>    students with other white students.  If they feel more comfortable this
>    way, then that is their choice.  

To which I say:  Looks like you have answered your own question.  That is,
some women would feel more comfortable talking to only women -- THAT is 
*clearly* one thing group (A) achieves that group (B) cannot.

rini
From: mikep@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Mike Powell)
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 03:59:00 GMT
Subject: Re: Victims of False "Memories" Form Organization
Organization: HP Santa Rosa Site (SRSD MWTD)
Newsgroups: soc.women



	This all sounds similar or along the lines of something that I have
	been calling the "coveted victim status".

	Through the eighties and especially the nineties, I have noticed
	immense increases in both the number of people and the degree to
	which individuals offer themselves as 'victims' of one form
	or another.

	It is understood that children lacking attention will often resort
	to "bad behavior", and risk punishment, in an attempt to 
	get attention or even the center of attention.  People 
	seeking "victim status" appear to be trying a similar tactic....

	It would seem that for some people, being seen as a victim produces
	instant sympathy and attention that they deeply feel they need.

	It used to be that individual pride prevented all but the most
	desperate people from asking for help or being seen as a
	"charity case".    Now it seems, personal pride is out.  Victimization
	is in.  Very in.   Even if it means adding drama to a minor
	event, or even creating such an event out of the blue.

	The interesting flip-side to all this are the countless people
	who seem to have a need to encourage OTHERS to see themselves as
	victims.  Witness the group that "discovered" that a large percentage
	of college women were 'raped', despite the fact that a substantial
	portion of these women felt that they had not been raped.

	Intuition tells me that these people who encourage the development
	of the "coveted victim status" in others, are attempting to construct
	a base of support for their own personal views, which allow them
	to feel that they are actually doing something constructive for
	the "poor victims" of __name_your_favorite_crime_here__.  It allows
	them to feel like the voice of sanity, and that they have a
	purpose.  This type of person seems to seek positions of power and
	athority in a given area...  examples would be social work,
	(especially CPS positions), mental health professions, and
	"grass-roots" organizers of certain social action groups.

	These people seem pre-disposed to see 'victims' all around them.
	And to add support to their delusions, they will often find
	'victimizers' or 'perpetrators' just to complete the picture,
	and to create a symbol of 'evil' that they can focus on.
	 
	This seems to be the latest and most ugly American pastime....

	"Prefessional victims", or "How to tell sad tales for fun and
	profit...."

	Makes me want to hurl.

	-Mike-
From: debra@creatures.cs.vt.edu (Debra Potts)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Mattel and math avoidance in girls
Date: 6 Oct 92 14:48:20 GMT

Could somebody please post the complaint number again?  I just read of it
in a post; didn't even know one existed.  Thanks!
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: women's place in life
X-To: DENNIS PRESTON
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 00:40:00 GMT

dennisp@kpc.com writes... (Dennis Peterson)
DP> In article <1992Aug28.115732.16261@zooid.guild.org> goid@zooid.guild.org (Wi
DP> teeves) writes:
DP> >guthrie@nb.rockwell.com (Karen Guthrie) writes...
DP> >KG> In article <1992Aug11.211255.18984@dragon.acadiau.ca>, 890530m@dragon.a
DP> a
DP> >KG>  (Darren MacKenzie) writes:
DP> >KG> > Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
DP> >KG> > >Some unknown writes...   (Okay, so I forgot his name!  Sue me!)
DP> >KG> > >
DP> >KG> > >S_>         I am new to this group and I'd just thought I'd share my
DP> w
DP> >KG> th
DP> >KG> > >S_> you.  I think that all you women should get away from the comput
DP> n
DP> >KG> art
DP> >KG> > >S_> doing what you were created to do (kitchen, kids, and domesticat
DP> o
DP> >KG> lav
DP> >KG> > >S_> Remember, you were made from our rib!
DP> >KG> >
DP> >KG> > >Flame bait...
DP> >
DP> >
DP> This isn't even Flame bait. How can an IMBECILE be realistically flamed?
DP> Come back when you grow up.
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Yes, Dennis, *even* imbeciles can be flamed, and indeed, *should* be flamed.

So for crying out loud, don't be screaming at me - Go tell off the damnable
scoundrel who made the original quote!

Sheesh...I flame a misogynist and then someone slams me for it!  It's not like
you actually *agree* with this twit, so bloody well insult *him*.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Radioactive halibut will make fission chips.
From: ci022@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard Kirby)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: ABSOLUTELY NEW REMEDY FOR CONTRACEPTION IS OFFERED !!
Date: 5 Oct 1992 03:30:25 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ci022@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Smoo)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, andro@sasco.georgia.su (Andrew Gachechiladze) says:

>
> 
>      Absolutely new remedy for contraception is offered !

I assume you mean method, not remedy.  Many forms of contraception
are already curable simply by discontinuing their use.  :^)

>                  Please, pay attention !

OK, I paid attention and I didn't learn anything.  What's it called?
When will it be available?  What's involved in it's use?  What are
the risks?

Thanks for nothing.


Xref: sparky soc.women:17335 talk.abortion:40190
From: KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu (Kurt Ludwick)
Newsgroups: soc.women,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: ABSOLUTELY NEW REMEDY FOR CONTRACEPTION IS OFFERED !!
Date: 3 Oct 92 00:10:21 GMT

In article <ABtgiogWZ1@sasco.georgia.su>, andro@sasco.georgia.su (Andrew
Gachechiladze) says:

>   It is biologically clean remedy. There is no sexual hormones in
> its composition and generally is produced without any chemical
> preparation.
>   A woman can use this remedy without consultation and interference
> of a physician. It is very simple and convenient in use and the main
> thing is that it doesn't cause any side effects on woman's organizm.
> Please, pay attention on this fact. It is multi use with
>                       99,9 % GUARANTEE !!

Hey, I've heard of it!  It's called ABSTINENCE!

(Sorry. I AM sorry.  I couldn't help it.  I lost control of my fingers.
 Please don't hurt me....  >:-)

------------
Kurt Ludwick
------------
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,soc.men