HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chrz@tellabs.com (Peter Chrzanowski)
Subject: Re: What can we expect from President Hill
Organization: Tellabs, Inc.
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 23:30:30 GMT

In article <2384@newsserver.cs.uwindsor.ca>, bouche2@server.uwindsor.ca (BOUCHER DAVID            ) writes:
> In article <C0pG38.41w@srgenprp.sr.hp.com> sam@sad.hp.com (Vicky Hansen) writes:
> >sbishop@desire.wright.edu (sbishop@desire.wright.edu) wrote:
> >: How about an honest answer from all the divorced people out there, male
> >: and female.  How many of you asked (or were asked) to go to counciling
> >: with your former mate?  How many went?
> >
> >My ex made the appointment, we went, he told the counselor that the problem
> >was mine and left.  The counselor and I were not successful in saving the 
> >marriage.
> 
> We went, and the counselor took the view that whatever problems exist, the 
> fault must always be divided 50-50.  My ex-wife would fly into a rage at the
> drop of a hat, physically assaulted me on numerous occasions, invented the
> most fantastic lies about me and told them to anyone who would listen, while
> I was bending over backwards trying to accomodate her.  The therapist's 
> response was to say that "we both" should be more accomodating.  Whenever
> the therapist did say anything even remotely sympathetic to me, my ex would
> say that I had conned the therapist.  As far as I can tell it was a total 
> waste of time.
> 

My wife said she'd divorce me if I didn't go to a "counselor".  So we went.

When we got there she announced that she'd go for ten sessions, and then
divorce me if she wasn't satisfied.  The "counselor" was poorly prepared,
barely remembered our names from one week to the next.  But she remembered
that my wife would divorce me if she wasn't satisfied, and so the whole 
focus of the "counseling" became: what does *he* have to do so she'll stop 
threatening divorce?

I'd guess there are a lot of incredibly bad "counselors" out there, and 
that degrees, licenses, and other credentials don't correlate all that
positively with quality (whatever that is).  What else can you expect
from a field in which objective standards don't exist?

Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,alt.women,soc.men,misc.legal
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: How to Protect Women
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 10:58:26 GMT

In article <1993Jan3.174518.26447@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> dsc@gemini.tmc.edu (Doug S. Caprette Bldg. 28 W191 x3892) writes:

)How can there be a single offender with multiple victims when the victims
)are the spouse of the offender? 
)
)Are we talking about people wiping out harems or what?

Hmm - my previous post might have explained this somewhat, but I'll clarify
a bit...

As long as one victim was the spouse, it is classified as a 'spousal
homicide'.


Xref: sparky soc.women:22488 sci.skeptic:22290 alt.sexual.abuse.recovery:9159 talk.abortion:55131 talk.politics.misc:67070 talk.religion.misc:25791 talk.bizarre:44285
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: soc.women,sci.skeptic,alt.sexual.abuse.recovery,talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,talk.bizarre
Subject: We Have Been Trying to WARN YOUN!!!!
Date: 11 Jan 93 13:20:34 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

haynes@cats.ucsc.edu (Jim Haynes) writes:
] In article <C0Iors.Mp8@cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
] >Primetime Live also said that
] >an FBI study (dated January 1992?) concluded that there was no
] >evidence of even one ritual-abuse related murder.
] 
] So!  Even the FBI is covering up for Satan!

How Many times HAve I personally Written about
the Evil SatanicKultRitualists in Washington DC
and folks have NOT Taken Me Serious About IT!!!!!

Now Slowly But Surely they are Learning that even the
FBI is in the Hands of SATAN!!!!!!

What will folks Learn NEXT!!!!

That Wild Bill Clinton, the Baby Boomer Beast,
which as I have pointed out is bbb, Has the
Mark of SATAN and thus CLEARLY showing that the
End TIMES ARE HERE!!!!!!


ciao
drieux


ps: what ever happened to the good old days of: 
	Space Aliens Made me a Sex Slave For Elvis.


-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: 
Just because you are a homicidal maniac
doesn't mean you don't have a sense of humor.
		- Barry Sadler
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.child-support
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Subject: Re: Duck and Jive (was Re
Organization: QQQCLC
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 20:49:41 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.025835.3927@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
>In article <1993Jan4.164754.6557@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>>	What you feel is your own business. I'll tell you this: if a
>>person refuses to help his own child, the flesh of his own flesh, when
>                        ^^^                         ^^^
>>that child is too young to care for itself, is there really anything
>>further he need do, any other line he must cross, to rate as a
>         ^^                         ^^
>>completely selfish bastard? Is there some demonstration of amoral
>                    ^^^^^^^^  - born out of wedlock?
>>selfishness which is stronger or more definite than this? Some more
>>extreme rejection of the no-man-is-an-island idea? If there is I must be
>>overlooking it.
>
>Oh, I guess it only applies if you are a dangler.  Sorry about that.

	Aaron, I'm disappointed in you. If this isn't just a cheap shot,
you must be blinded by your personal anger. I used "he" because 90% of
NCPs are men. If you see some kind of sexism against men in my simple
recognition of fact, that is your projection. Maybe you should pay less
attention to the pronouns, and more to the nouns and verbs.

	But I am disappointed, in any case. You're a good writer, and
good writers must be good readers, yet your reaction to my article is
pure kneejerk. There was nothing especially feminist about what I wrote;
no surprise, since there's nothing especially feminist about my views.
Your heavily ironic and conclusion-jumping response simply shows you are
yet another of the many one-trick ponies in the gender groups, on both
sides of the argument, who are too tied up emotionally in their _own_
custody/support woes to maintain any objectivity. If you're going to
respond to me, respond to what I write.

	I'll consider responding to your other points when you've
stopped putting words in my mouth, and demonstrate you're paying
attention.

-  From the Crow's Nest  -                Kenn Barry
----------------------------------------------------------------
ELECTRIC AVENUE:    			barry@netcom.com
From: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Date: 6 Jan 93 17:26:09 GMT
Reply-To: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Organization: Columbia University

I would like too add something too my previous post.

Starbuck, It is silly to attck me by calling me a feminist. Though my post
was not written from a feminist point of view, I would be proud to call myself 
a feminist. I believe that there is no inherent intellectual difference between
the sexes. Do you believe otherwise?

In my opinion,( notice I am not stating this as fact), only a fool would 
not be a feminist. As you have demontrated yourself to be both fool and
non-feminist, I will accept this as the first step towards a proof.

Robert Johnston
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism
From: elt@astro.Princeton.EDU (Ed Turner)
Subject: Re: Feminism As A Religion
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 03:44:05 GMT

>bouche2@server.uwindsor.ca (David Boucher) writes:
>It seems obvious that there are many differences between the sexes in ways of
>thinking and behavior.  The only question is to what extent those differences
>are learned, and to what extent are they "inherent".

This endlessly debatable, and from a strictly scientific perspective still
open, dichotomy is largely a red herring (irrelevant) to feminist issues, IMO.
The usual subtext, often unstated, is that we cannot hope to change what is
inherent but could "easily" change what is not.  There are at least two
obvious flaws in this line of reasoning:

1) It is apparent that plasticity is a (some might even say *the*) major
   unique charactersitic of human (as compared to animal) behavior.  We
   are pretty clearly evolved to live in small hunter-gatherer tribes with
   simple primate-like social structures, but if it were impossible for
   people to function in any other mode, most of human culture (e.g.,
   farming, cities, ...) would never have come about.  In some sense,
   what might be broadly called "progress" is basicly the result of people
   gradually replacing instinctive with learned behaviors.  [To give one
   example, there is very probably some inherent instinctive tendancy for
   people to be racist (see sociobiology text of your choice), but few
   would offer this as a reason to support or tolerate racist societies.]

2) Perhaps even more important, whatever the origin of "differences between
  the sexes in ways of thinking and behavior", it is also obvious that these
  differences are merely statistical tendancies not absolute individual
  destinies.  Moreover, for many or most things, these differences are not
  large compared to the variations among individuals.  So, ultimately, it
  is both fairer and more effective to judge individuals on their particular
  abilities/performance than on any stereotype (even if it is statistically
  valid).  [For example, ETS has found (but does not widely advertise) that
  the single best statistical predictor of SAT scores is, for whatever reason,
  the student's family income.  However, you certainly wouldn't want to use
  family income instead of the SAT scores themselves for college admissions
  because (aside from moral/ethical issues) there is still a lot of scatter,
  wealthy students with low scores and poor students with high scores counter
  to the overall trend.]

So, while "inherent differnces" might be of some explanatory use (e.g., in
explaining similarities in sexual stereotypes among diverse cultures), I
cannot see the idea as having any normative (i.e., useful in deciding what
"ought" to be) force.

Ed Turner
elt@astro.princeton.edu
Xref: sparky soc.women:22447 alt.child-support:4315 talk.abortion:54984
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Subject: Re: Crossposting Cult Discussions To ASAR
Organization: QQQCLC
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 23:44:25 GMT

In article <1isbjkINNp4i@transfer.stratus.com> lmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com writes:
>Steve Russell writes
>>	I would like to reinforce the plea that posts about Satanic Abuse
>>	*NOT* be cross posted to alt.sex.abuse.recovery.
>
>I second this.  I've sent E-mail to some of the main offenders.
>At least one person has backed down, but others are STILL
>doing it.

	Hmmm. I've avoided posting or xposting to asar. I'm not God, nor
even a Therapist, and it ain't my playground nor my ball. But I've
looked at the newsgroup and I get a really queasy feeling. While I have
no doubt that many in the group have experienced sexual abuse, I also
have no doubt that there are also some delusional people who are getting
their delusions nurtured there, and I very much doubt this is healthy. I
would be very surprised if the Satanic Abuse therapy-fad is not
frequently doing harm to both patients and their families.

	Is it really good manners to say nothing? I'm not so sure. If
any friend of mine got involved in this stuff I would not refrain from
speaking out to them. As it is, I feel like I'm watching strangers get a
prefrontal lobotomy while I'm silently thinking, "hey, is this _really_
a good idea?"

	I'm not skeptical about there being widespread child abuse. I
_am_ skeptical of repressed memories and glib diagnoses of MPD. As for
widespread ritual Satanic abuse... well, "skeptical" is too weak a word
:-). And I feel uneasy about saying nothing about what I see. I guess
that's why I'm saying it here, while leaving a.s.a.r. alone - it's a
personal compromise.

-  From the Crow's Nest  -                Kenn Barry
----------------------------------------------------------------
ELECTRIC AVENUE:    			barry@netcom.com
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: A question about women driving
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 08:17:17 GMT

dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber) writes:

>Not to mention that her point is irrelevant to this thread.  Unless she can
>come up with compelling statistics that female college undergrads are given
>a raw deal car-wise compared to male undergrads.

Oh how cute, a net.cop.

And how silly it was of nasty ol' Sharon to reply to an anecdote with an
anecdote!  Why, anyone could see that the original poster was asking
for comprehensive statistics on female driving, and not someone else's
personal experience!

>[deleted]

Indeed.

>Dan S.

                  -rocker
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil)
Subject: Re: A question about women driving
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 02:58:28 GMT

dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber) writes:

>In article <C0pIH8.5DM@srgenprp.sr.hp.com>, sam@sad.hp.com (Vicky Hansen) writes:
>> Sharon O'Neil (oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu) wrote:
>> : This is the first year that I've had access to a car and so I learned 
>> : how to drive.  But it makes me SO FURIOUS sometimes that I had to wait
>> : this long.  I was financially dependent upon them as an undergrad and
>> : had no way to get the money to get a car on my own. 
>>
>>   ever heard of working?

>Not to mention that her point is irrelevant to this thread.  Unless she can
>come up with compelling statistics that female college undergrads are given
>a raw deal car-wise compared to male undergrads.

How is my point irrelevant?  If you read my entire post, I point out how
my family is one in which the women do not drive.  Neither grandmother 
drives.  My father controls my mother's driving and I believe this is why
my mother chose to control mine.  If you were there when I was a teen
wishing to learn, you'd understand.  My mother would throw fits about how
she didn't want me learning how to drive.  She still threw the same fits
this year, when I returned home from my old school.  To her, having a car
is power because my dad has controlled her driving so much -- and won't
let her drive when she is in the car.

>[deleted]

This is what happens when you leave CONTEXT out and merely respond to one
point.  But then, I guess that's to be expected around here.


>-- 

>#include <std_disclaimer.h>

>Dan S.

sharon
oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu
who proudly has lower insurance costs than your typical male driver

Newsgroups: soc.women,sci.skeptic,alt.sexual.abuse.recovery
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: "Satanic Ritual Abuse" in the media
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 04:07:04 GMT

The cover story on the new issue of _Ms._ magazine is 
                 "Believe it!
            Cult Ritual Abuse Exists
               One Women's Story"

Inside is a 6-page first-hand account by "Elizabeth S. Rose" (a
pseudonym). The article ends "If we want to stop ritual abuse, the
first step is to believe these brutual crimes occur."

The lead story on ABC's "Primetime Live" was also on ritual abuse. It
was much more skeptical. It pointed out that some psychotherapists
were getting rich finding ritual abuse almost everywhere they look.
The show also talked to four women who said their psychotherapists had
exploited them by feeding them fantasies (while ignoring their
truthful accounts of "ordinary" abuse.) Primetime Live also said that
an FBI study (dated January 1992?) concluded that there was no
evidence of even one ritual-abuse related murder. (Some of the
psychotherapists claim that tens or even hundreds of thousands of
ritual murders are involved.)

- Carl
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Xref: sparky soc.women:22495 sci.skeptic:22298
From: lmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Laurie Mann)
Newsgroups: soc.women,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Crossposting Cult Discussions To ASAR
Date: 11 Jan 1993 17:43:16 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
Reply-To: lmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: ansible.pubs.stratus.com

Steve Russell writes
>	I would like to reinforce the plea that posts about Satanic Abuse
>	*NOT* be cross posted to alt.sex.abuse.recovery.

I second this.  I've sent E-mail to some of the main offenders.
At least one person has backed down, but others are STILL
doing it.

>	The usual "barber shop bull sessions" that go on in alt.fem soc.women
>	would be quite upsetting and HURTFULL to many going through recover
>	in asar.

Not would be---I'm sure it IS hurtful to many in ASAR.  Notice how quiet
it's been the last few days?

>	If you have to flame, do it here.  The people who use asar use
>	it to reveal things about themselves in a safe enviroment.  They
>	arent there for hacking ideas apart.  Being a "Sceptic" ( syn for-
>	first class schmuck) there isnt proving anything to anyone other
>	then the level of the callousness of the poster.  Have some 
>	compassion.  Please.

Furthermore, what these so called "skeptics" have been doing is roughly  
equivalent to those neanderthals who post "Cure Homosexuality Now" articles 
to soc.motss.  I have no respect for the "skeptics" who harass abuse survivors  
while lapping after accused abusers.  Why doesn't their skepticism work
both ways?  I suppose that might require a little intellectual honesty,
something that many "skeptics" don't have around the abuse issue.

*  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: What can we expect from President Hilliary Clinton
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 22:28:09 GMT

I dont like Hilliary Clinton.  No profound reasons, she just seems
kind of mean/ruthless.  I get the same feeling when I hear her
speak as when I listen to Bob Dole.

I think it is foolish to assume that a president is NOT going to
unburden himself to his wife and discuss what is on his mind.

However, I do think it is way out of line for the Clinton's
to push this in the media, like they have, as if Hillary was
being elected/appointed.

Im happy to have a liberal, intelligent, assetive woman as a first lady
as opposed to a nancy reagan or barbara bush.........However I voted
for Bill Clinton and I wish Hilliary would remember that before engaging
in her "two for one" talk.

SFJR

Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.child-support
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Thoughts on Sexual Harassment
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Distribution: soc.women, soc.men
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:35:34 GMT

In article <3408@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> pjself@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Beverly Crusher) writes:

)What's really going on here?  10 and 11 year old boys are _sexually_
)harassing girls at their school?!  Seems crazy, right?

Actually, it does - I get the impression you may have been rhetorical, 
but I think it is true in a more literal sense.  I hope people start
realizing this and noticing how far out of line with reality the laws are
getting - and take some corrective action.

)I can tell you
)first hand that such things do go on...and worse...even right down to
)the grade schools.  I am a teacher-to-be and witnessed such things at
)the Jr. High where I did my student teaching.

I think things like the <omitted examples> you described *do* go on.  I think
the label of 'sexual harassment' is a very questionable one to describe them.
I also think a lot of similar bad things happen to boys.  Physical assault is
quite common - it's almost proverbial and an expected right of passage.  This
is in the better neighborhoods - poor neighborhoods are now worried
more about drugs and kids shooting themselves (and adults/teachers, too), not
assault and bloody noses.

)Here are my thoughts on the matter....
)Many boys in this country do not have full-time in their lives the most
)important role model they should have     THEIR FATHERS!

Difficult to judge the impact of this (IMO).

...

)But what I think a lot of this comes down to...at school, at home, at
)work....is that some boys are not taught (and so as men don't have) to
)have  *RESPECT*  for girls/women.  Doesn't it?

I think that some people are not taught RESPECT for other people - period.
From: starbuck@galaxy.ucr.edu (starbuck)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Date: 4 Jan 93 19:45:03 GMT
Organization: University of California, Riverside

In article <1i9ks0INNg5e@transfer.stratus.com> lmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com writes:
>Vicky Hansen writes
>>Rich Payne (payner@netcom.com) wrote:
>>: Perhaps if women took responsibility for raising
>>: their children as non-violent there would be less.
>>I doubt if the majority of mass murderer's mothers deliberately raised their
>>children to be violent.  I also question the fact that fathers seem to be
>>out of this picture (especially since I suspect you are male).
>
>Excellent comments.  Let's continue to blame the women, despite
>the fact the vast majority of violence in all societies on this
>planet is committed by men.  What a helpful thing to be doing!
>
>We need to raise our daughters to be stronger, and our sons to
>be more concerned about other people.

I clipped the following from soc.feminism.  You might find it of
interest.

starbuck

>From a TV News Documentry :

8.  Boys from female headed households with an absence of adequate
    male rolemodels tend to do poorly in school, ie not paying attention
    and willfully bucking the teacher's ( female ) authority.

9.  Such boys improved in academic as well as behavioural discipline
    when exposed to male teachers or other male rolemodels throughout
    the school day.

>From a Washington Post Aritical on Teen Violence:

10.  Most teen violence is perpetuated by male teenagers.  It is
     worse for male teenagers from female headed households and
     far worse in female headed households with a prolonged absence
     of male rolemodels.

11.  In such households it is more likely for a child to attack
     a parent ( female ) when a parent tries to "reestablish"
     parental authority after the violent behaviour starts.

Newsgroups: soc.women
From: sam@sad.hp.com (Vicky Hansen)
Subject: Re: [SOC] A social issue (Re: Equality between men and women)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 19:25:21 GMT
Organization: HP Sonoma County (SRSD/MWTD/MID)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL7]

parks_typ@med.wcc.govt.nz wrote:
: no matter how angry I get at a person, how much they've hurt/humiliated
: me, and what dire fates I've fantasised for them, if it came down to it I
: couldn't harm them - not even with hurtful words.  
: 
: A classic example is a very drunk and annoying but basically harmless guy who
: was groping me at a party just before Christmas.  I threw a glass of water in
: his face, but when he wouldn't give up I got out of range rather than punch
: him - I do know self-defence, but don't know if I'd use it and hope I never
: find out.

I hope you never have to find out either but there is a world of difference
between a harmless drunk groping and what some people are capable of doing to
you +/or your children.  I would guess that you are capable of harming
someone under the right circumstances.
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism