HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth)
Subject: Re: What do you Am men think about Am women?
Organization: Software Engineering Institute
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 14:12:54 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.004907.18226@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> jsmt@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Julia Smith) writes:

>Anyone who thinks that what one reads reflects what one desires is in
>need of a very, very large clue.

Funny how so many of the feminists who want to ban male-oriented pornography
seem to lack this clue.  Funny too how unwilling many of their sisters are
to set them straight.

Newsgroups: soc.men
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Recent Bill Clinton q
X-To: BRONIS VIDUGIRIS
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 02:33:00 GMT

bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes...


BV> In article <1992Oct17.230414.29715@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid
BV> ld.org> writes:

BV> )"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
BV> )                                                          - Bronis Vidugiri

BV> Actually, that was shamelesly lifted from a game company's promotion
BV> (Paladin?  Don't recall).  I saw quite a bit of it at Gen-con.


Bah!  Don't worry about it!  It's *your* quote, as far as I'm concerned...  :-)

---
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 * Picard/Ryker in '92 - Make It So!
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood)
Subject: Re: A GREAT Night for Americans!  (Women e
Reply-To: jsw@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 11 Nov 92 08:49:21 CST

*Ed Falk asks:

*Why the assumption that anything good for women is automatically bad
*for men?

 Why the assumption that anything good for women is automatically payed
for by men. 

 Would N.O.W. care to answer that, or as 60 minutes showed us. the 
feministas don't much care about that shit.

Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.supermodels,alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 18:46:49 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.225035.15414@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>On these grounds, I think one could also argue that a Chippendale's 
>>>calendar also means a very different thing in our society than
>>>a swimsuit calendar.  I'm pretty sure they do mean different things
>>>to your average Joe and Jane Doe.  (Note that I'm not interested in 
>>>debating if one is harmful and the other is not -- it's not real clear
>>>cut to me.  I'm no semi-nude calendar expert!  I don't really have
>>>much of a clue as to what the two types of calendar "mean".)
> 
>>>Does that make any sense?
> 
>>Yes, the old "oppressed people cannot be x-ist" argument.
>
>No it isn't.  
>
>Apparently, you tried very hard to read something into what I wrote
>that was clearly not there.
>
>What I'm saying is that it may not be very meaningful to compare
>a bikini calendar of women to a Chippendale's calendar of men.  

Why or why not. 

>Maybe it would be *more* useful to compare a bikini calendar 
>of women to a calendar of bachelor men which listed their 
>incomes, assets, and number of credit cards.  

Maybe it would be more useful to compare a bikini calender to a can 
of motor oil, but I doubt it.
 
>*That's* what I mean when I say that sexism is a two-way street, but
>it necessarily doesn't operate in the same way to the different people.

Is that not what feminists here claim is the problem with society?

>Indeed, the very existence of "sexism" implies that there are double-
>standards.  

So you defend the ones which might be to your advantage, even with
similar to identical situations. 
 
>If the world was as full of Chippendale's calendars as it is full 
>of calendars of scantily clad women, I think it'd be silly to conclude
>that the sexism has now simply doubled.  

Too bad, because it would indeed follow.

>                                            Instead, this would be a
>convincing indicator to suggest that isn't a sexist world anymore at
>all.

Or that neither one was ever sexist. (you know, the sexism is in the eye
of the beholder)
 
>rini


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Xref: sparky soc.men:18982 soc.women:19209
From: shimeall@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (timothy shimeall)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: An Open Letter to Bill Clinton
Date: 9 Nov 92 23:36:57 GMT
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA

In article <1992Nov9.070302.26503@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>Oh, come on, Will. That's not the same thing at all. An aborted child NEVER
>KNOWS that it is aborted. Never feels deprived or "different". It never cries. 
>It never suffers. Please try to make a reasonable comparison.

Wrong.  There are several young people who have survived an attempt to
kill them during an abortion (usually, a saline abortion).  I've spoken
to one of them, and she spoke of the suffering she experienced
recovering from the neurological damage inflicted by the abortion, the
suffering she experienced knowing that her biological mother treated
her as a disposable annoyance (and later, when her biological mother
tried to make contact with her, the pain of having to deal with someone
who wanted her dead), the feeling of being "different" and deprived
because her biological mother tried to kill her and then abandoned
her.  She speaks (eloquently) for the millions of voices forever
silenced in "pro-choice" clinics.
				Tim
-- 
Tim Shimeall ((408) 646-2509)
The proper response to detecting a bug isn't to fix the bug - it's to make 
sure you'll never have to worry about that bug again.  --- Richard Hamming
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Subject: Swans' Case: an Update
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 21:54:23 GMT

I received the following update from a person who knows the Swans (the
people who were accused of abusing their daughter several years ago and
were convicted based on the testimony of an impeachable daycare worker
and the testimoney of a male nurse who stated that the daughter's hymen
was not intact--although a recent examination of the daughter concluded
that the hymen IS intact) and has some contacts with people involved in
the Swans' case.  Hopefully, there will be more detailed information
coming in the near future....

>I talked to one of Bill Swan's sisters over the weekend, and have her
>permission to make the following public.  The case is under appeal in the 9th
>Circuit Court of San Francisco, but is moving very slowly.  Bill is about to
>be eligible for work release, and is eligible for pre-release sometime this
>summer.  Kathy has already been moved to a pre-release facility (I asked what
>this was:  apparently it's more-or-less like a minimum security facility, but
>the inmates don't have quite as much freedom as in minimum security).  
>
>His sister asked me not to go into any detail about the child, but I think
>I can safely say that her current situation is probably the best possible
>under the circumstances, and she's doing really well.
>
>Another friend of theirs told me that one of the reasons the appeal is bogged
>down is because they're real low on money.  There is a defense fund set
>up for them, and next time I see the sister I'll ask her for the address,
>in case anyone wants to contribute.

Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM
From: jmd@bear.com (Josh Diamond)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: What do you Am men think about Am women?
Date: 10 Nov 92 19:37:32 GMT
	<MARTINC.92Nov8150437@grover.cs.unc.edu>
	<1992Nov9.202710.26265@netcom.com>
	<MARTINC.92Nov9214210@hatteras.cs.unc.edu>
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: Bear, Stearns & Co. - FAST
In-reply-to: martinc@hatteras.cs.unc.edu's message of 10 Nov 92 02:42:10 GMT


In article <MARTINC.92Nov9214210@hatteras.cs.unc.edu> martinc@hatteras.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:

   In article <1992Nov9.202710.26265@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:

	       I didn't write this. The attribution is messed up.

   I hate computers.

Thats nice.  They hate you too.


Spidey!!!

--
 /\ \  / /\  Josh Diamond                                          jmd@bear.com
//\\ .. //\\ AKA Spidey!!!                        ...!ctr.columbia.edu!ursa!jmd
//\((  ))/\\
/  < `' >  \                                              Do whatever it takes.
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 22:51:50 GMT

In article <1992Nov04.212102.27579@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In article <1992Oct29.154439.6563@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>>I don't want to take away a woman's right to make this decision; but I truly
>>believe the father has some rights that are currently being ignored.  The
>>father deserves some role in the decision, and I don't think requiring a
>>pregnant woman to get a little input from the father in the decision is such a
>>bad idea.  It places *more* responsibility on the father.  It also might allow
>>a father to have a child he truly wants that the mother doesn't.  The final
>>decision should still be that of the mother.
>>
>>Certainly there are tough cases where this simply won't work [many have been
>>outlined here], but I think it should be the norm.
>
>Just curious - what makes you believe that it *isn't* the norm?  Or do
>you just like making unnecessary laws?

First of all, I didn't say it wasn't the norm, but if you want to claim it's
implied, fine, I'll retract that.
I still believe that there are a significant number of cases where a father's
rights are being ignored, and a law to correct this could hardly be called
unnecessary.
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
From: firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth)
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Organization: Software Engineering Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 13:11:18 GMT

In article <Bx7K74.662@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>If there is a dispute, then:
>
>1.  The father denies fatherhood and demands a paternity test.
>If it's negative, he "wins."

You seem to have forgotten the Charlie Chaplin case.  A woman sued Chaplin,
claiming he had fathered her child.  He demanded a paternity test.  The
test showed he could not be the father of the child.  She won the suit
anyway.

Another great victory for the women's movement over such oppressive,
patriarchal concepts as truth and justice.
Xref: sparky soc.men:19123 soc.women:19376
From: jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Date: 12 Nov 92 20:00:13 GMT
Reply-To: jsw@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.

In article 721585353@ee.uts.EDU.AU, johnr@ee.uts.edu.au (John Reekie) writes:
>riaedwards@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au (AUDREY EDWARDS) writes:
>
>>One things for certain, whilst I'm as confident as I want to be, I 
>>certainly would not date a man with an Elle MacPherson calandar on his 
>>wall! Now, a Paul Klee calandar is different (and for the culturally 
>>unenlightened, he is not a member of the Chippendales!!!!)   
>
>I do not have an Elle PacPherson calendar on my wall. I would
>like to, but I do not, because it would upset my girlfriend. Does that make
>me a Dateable Man or a Nondateable Man?
>
>John
>
>


Neither. It makes you a henpecked wimp. 

What other things do you avoid in life that should be of little concern
of hers?  'fess up, you ain't gettin' enough as it is. Dump her in a heart
beat. 

I don't care if she is Perot's daughter, all the money in the world couldn't
change the miserable existance of living with a women whose so damn insecure
that she can't handle a calender. 

Then again John, a women you love wouldn't require you to want a calender
of "what's her skinny ass name" because you're too busy gettin' it at home.
Xref: sparky soc.men:19051 soc.women:19286 alt.abortion.inequity:5018 talk.abortion:47614 alt.feminism:4145
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Date: 11 Nov 1992 04:25:43 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:

>In article <1dcagmINNh00@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>>>My point is that the mother may know who the father is, but not tell.
>>>>She may just say it's a good male friend.  She may say it's Dan Quayle.
>>>>She may say it's Santa Clause.  How are you going to tell who it really
>>>>is?  Are you going to subject women to amniocentesis (or some other test)
>>>>which introduces risk to both the woman and the foetus?  Are you going 
>>>>to keep a genetic bank with identifying information on all the men in 
>>>>the world, so you can check who matches the foetus?  What if the woman/man
>>>>don't *want* to be tested??
>>
>>>You have already answered your nonsensical data-base question:  When Dan Quayle
>>>or Santa Claus are informed of their paternity, they can then make an
>>>intelligent response, which may well include insisting on proof of paternity.
>>
>>(1)  How do you propose to test Santa Clause?

>I'm sure the legal system will find a way to deal with this.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>>(2)  Say the woman doesn't know, or won't tell, what do you do then?
>>Torture her until she 'fesses up?

>No, the last time I checked torture was illegal.  There are a variety of legal
>penalties that could be applicable.
>I'd appreciate serious questions, btw.  You're getting serious answers.
>-- 
>"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu

Perhaps you didn't mean it to be funny, but the underlined response
is the best lawyer joke I've heard in a long time.  To paraphrase Rini,
"Snort!  You made me get milk up my nose!"
Best belly laugh I've had in a long time.

Now back to seriosity....

							--  Michal
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Date: 9 Nov 92 08:48:12
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1992Nov9.002518.8211@netcom.com>
	<1992Nov8.194713.24156@news.cs.indiana.edu>
	<1992Nov9.024335.10437@midway.uchicago.edu>
	<BxFoFs.974@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca's message of Mon, 9 Nov 1992 05:26:15 GMT

In article <BxFoFs.974@ccu.umanitoba.ca> kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts) writes:
>In <1992Nov9.024335.10437@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:
>>>fletcher@rtf.bt.co.uk (Catherine Fletcher) writes:

>>>>By the way, anyone who has the slightest grasp of what sexism is and doesn't
>>>>understand why an Elle calendar is offensive and harmful and a Chippendales
>>>>calendar isn't probably has no aptitude for complex thought - therefore I
>>>>am resorting to condescending insult rather than reasoned explanation.

[rini's excellent analogies]

>You have made a strong case that our reactions are dependent on more than
>whether something is right or wrong.  I don't think  anyone would dissagree
>with that.  However, in all situations, if people hold one side wrong, then
>the other should still be wrong.  This consistency seems to be completely
>lacking in Catherine's response.

Indeed, she made an excellent case that the reactions are dependent on
more than right or wrong.  In the quoted paragraph, Catherine argues not
that one is right and the other wrong, but that one is harmful and the
other is not.  If, indeed, our reactions are based on more than right
and wrong (as I also believe that they are), then it is possible to say
either that they wae both "wrong," but one is harmful and the other
isn't, OR that they are both "right," but one is harmful and the other
isn't, because the reactions of people to them are different.

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
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: compromise
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 23:41:20 GMT

In article <BxCtI5.8ut@cs.psu.edu> 
beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer) writes:
>>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

>>> Any state in the Union can permit an abortion on the day before birth.

>> We would be happier if there were even fewer restrictions upon 
>> abortion roghts.

> Does David S. Auer represent the pro-choice movement?

  "i suspect that you do sound pro-choice to some people. i would
   doubt "most." that is why i thought it important to point out
   that you are not, in fact, pro-choice as you do not oppose
   legislation to restrict a woman's right to an abortion during the
   third trimester."

        keegan@daisymae.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
        <1992May24.032109.20775@crd.ge.com>

>Don


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
From: "Amy Young Leith" <alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Strong women in film (was Re: What do you Am men think about Am women?)
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 10:18:06 -0500

In article <1992Nov9.050437.20319@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>In article <1992Nov8.105051.13498@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> markr@mcil.comm.mot.com writes:
>>
>>Actually, last night I saw 'Basic Instinct' and thought it was an excellent
>>film with very strong female characters.  I consider it one of the top ten
>>for the year. (My SO enjoyed it just as much, and then I got to enjoy again
>>when we got home :-)
>
>Just a coincidence that nearly all the lesbian and bisexual women are
>killers?

I can't read your intent here... are you being facetious because you
feel the movie was a "bad move" because it portrayed a bisexual as a
possible killer?  

If so.... 

I say let's not try and strike down movies we find negative, but move
for the creation of more movies which we view as positive.  Support
gay writers and producers, and let them know what you want to see...
If that's more realistic and positive views on lesbians, gays, and
bisexuals, then say so.  

But I still thought it was a good movie.  I loved the twisted plot.  I
know who did it... no I don't... I know, I know... no I don't.... 

Not to mention Roxy.  Wow!  =)  I thought Sharon Stone was wonderful
as a cocky, confident woman, but eh, I got sick of seeing her do the
same thing in bed.  =)  

I thought at LEAST the women who were non-het were still shown as
feminine... that's a rarity, as it is. 

amy




-- 
alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu for personal mail
			    All business mail to alyoung@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       I only speak for myself.  Anyone who thinks differently is a fool.

Newsgroups: soc.men
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.child.support
Subject: Re: An Open Letter to Bill Clinton
Date: 9 Nov 92 14:34:42 GMT
Organization: Penn State Computer Science

In article <1992Nov9.070302.26503@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Oct30.014455.22581@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>>
>>In response to Dave Gross's post of a quote by Bill Clinton:
>>
>>Bill "You're no Jack Kennedy, either" Clinton says:
>>
>>"I know how awful it is for a kid to grow up knowing that somewhere out there,
>>there is some father who abandoned her or him.  I just -- it infuriates me.
>>And so, do I think we ought to have a Draconian system of national child
>>support enforcement?  I sure do.  I really believe that.  I do."

>>In our society, such as it is, comments like this, though biased only against
>>the male side of the equation, are cheered and admired.  Now then, just imagine
>>if Bill Clinton had said *this*:
>>
>>"I know how awful it is for a kid to never grow up, because somewhere out 
>>there, there is some mother who aborted her or him.  I just -- it infuriates 
>>me.  And so, do I think we ought to have a Draconian system to make sure that 
>>we save babies?   I sure do.  I really believe that.  I do."
>
>Oh, come on, Will. That's not the same thing at all. An aborted child NEVER
>KNOWS that it is aborted. Never feels deprived or "different". It never cries. 
>It never suffers. Please try to make a reasonable comparison.

To avoid flames and play fair, you should probably avoid categorical 
statements about whether a fetus never suffers or never "knows" its
limbs are being torn apart.  Those are your opinions.  Don't forget that 
the difference between a fetus and a child can be as little as one day -- 
and even when it is 4 months, you will find differences of opinion.


But, to make this more interesting, the point is that Clinton is
happy to treat men in Draconian ways.  How about:

 "I know how awful it is for a kid to grow up knowing that somewhere out there,
 there is some father who abandoned her or him.  I just -- it infuriates me.
 And so, do I think we ought to have a Draconian system of national 
 abortion enforcement?  I sure do.  I really believe that.  I do."

Draconian.  Doesn't appeal to me, in case you're warming up a flamethrower.

Nor does Clinton's comment appeal to me.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged