HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ramon@convex.com (Ramon Dominguez)
Subject: Re: Thoughts on Sexual Harassment
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 00:09:09 GMT
Distribution: soc.women, soc.men
Organization: The Arts Babblative and Scribblative
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

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

But boys don't have any respect for *each other* at that age, either.  I agree
that people of all ages should respect people in general.  Certainly boys
shouldn't subject each other to the kind of abuse that they do, but given
that they do, this line of reasoning seems sexist to me.  My stepdaughter was
abused, not-quite-beaten-up, by a group of three older *girls*.  I don't
think that at that age, sexual harassment is really different from all the
other kinds of harassment:  you're fat, you're ugly, you smell, what-are-you
chicken?

Sorry, but I think this is an unsolvable problem.  If you can stop boys from
beating each other up (ask some male colleagues how many fights got into in
K-12 that they didn't start), then you might have a prayer of getting them
to treat girls with respect.  Face it, children are little savages and until
they get civilized they will act accordingly.

WARNING:
This article may be harmful or fatal if swallowed.  Do not insert this article
into the ear canal.  Not responsible for injuries due to reading this article
in shower.  Prolonged inhalation of fumes from this article may result in
nausea, dizzyness, convulsions, and death.  Do not operate any motor vehicle,
heavy equipment, or power tools while reading this article.   Dispose of this
article in a responsible manner when finished reading.   The author of this
article is under pressure, do not puncture or incinerate this article.  May not
be suitable for children under 12.  Discontinue reading this article if skin
rash appears, and consult a physician.  No warranties expressed or implied.

You didn't read this, and I didn't write it.

--ramon (not)

-- 
Ramon Dominguez             | "Work is the curse of the drinking class"       
Convex Computer Corporation |                            --Oscar Wilde
ramon@convex.com            | "Ceci n'est pas une .signature file"
Newsgroups: soc.women,sci.skeptic,alt.sexual.abuse.recovery
From: mjw@mailbox.eng.ufl.edu (Mike Wohlgemuth)
Subject: Re: "Satanic Ritual Abuse" in the media
Organization: Engineering Computing Services - Univ. of Fla.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 15:08:42 GMT

kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:

>                                                  (Some of the
>psychotherapists claim that tens or even hundreds of thousands of
>ritual murders are involved.)

I've seen people claim that between 50,000 and 2,000,000 ritual murders
take place every year in the U.S.  Now let's see:

50,000 murders / 365 days a year / 50 states = 2.74 ritual murders per
day in each state.

I think not.

Mike
Newsgroups: soc.women,sci.skeptic
From: warton@ssd.intel.com (Peter Warton)
Subject: Re: "Satanic Ritual Abuse" in the media
Organization: Supercomputer System Division, Intel
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 23:41:43 GMT

I think that this thread should not be crossposted to alt.sexual.abuse.recovery
anymore.

Thanks,
Peter
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Warton (The h was dropped     | Against my better judgement (not to
over 800 years ago)		    | mention the advice of my friends) I
warton@ssd.intel.com		    | speak for myself.
Xref: sparky soc.women:22253 soc.men:22283 talk.politics.misc:66468 alt.feminism:6879
From: bouche2@server.uwindsor.ca (BOUCHER DAVID            )
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,talk.politics.misc,alt.feminism
Subject: Feminism is a RELIGION! (eureka!)
Date: 6 Jan 1993 21:47:29 GMT
Followup-To: soc.women
Organization: University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada

In article <1993Jan6.172609.28106@news.columbia.edu> rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:
> [...]  I believe that there is no inherent intellectual difference between
>the sexes. Do you believe otherwise?

Ah, but do you believe there is any intellectual difference between the sexes
that is NOT inherent?  

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".  The "feminist" position,
as you have outlined it, is that whatever observable differences there may be
are 100% learned behaviors, with zero percent "inherency".

Now, if a particular difference persists in a myriad of diverse cultures over
a very long period of time (say, 6,000 years), that is pretty good evidence
that the difference is inherent to SOME extent.
  
(Note that i said "evidence", not "proof"... it is just about impossible to
"prove" anything with respect to human behavior.)
 
But what evidence is there that there are NO inherent mental differences?
If even ONE inherent difference can be found, no matter how small, then that
proposition must be wrong... but on the other hand, since any inherent 
difference that one might posit can be "explained away", then the proposition
is unfalsifiable.  It becomes a matter of faith.

"Feminism" is not a set of logical postulates that can be debated, analyzed,
and resolved.  It's a religion, pure and simple.   
 
   
- db

PS. Would it be too inflammatory to suggest that pro-feminist legislation 
might be unconstitutional on first amendment grounds... "separation of
church and state"?   ;)
 
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: I confess!... *HE'S* guilty!!!!
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 18:04:36 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.164453.25377@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:

)If there were no Dworkin, anti-feminists would have to
)invent one; and often, reading these newsgroups, I think
)they have.  I hope to go into the cult of anti-feminism
)sometime, which seems far more coherent than feminism.  To
)wit: certain alleged feminists, almost invariably Dworkin,
)MacKinnon, sometimes Chesler or Brownmiller, are carefully
)scanned for remarks which can be taken out of context and
)waved about whenever any question related to feminism 
)arises.  The entire remaining body of feminist literature
)and activity is ignored, because it _doesn't_matter_.  The
)point is to attack feminism, not to know what it is.  It
)seems it is enough to recognize it as The Other, and to
)score points.  Whoever dies with the most points wins, I
)guess.

Actually, most Dworkin quotes don't take much 'careful selection' or
scanning to find.  What seems to me to be hard to find is good, sensible
things by Dworkin.  Gordon hasn't found any yet, that I know of.  Someone
did post a fairly pro-male  McacKinnon quote once.  That took a fair amount
of selection, IMO.

Here's a typical example of a Dworkin quote:

Dworkin, from "Why So-Called Radical Men Love And Need Pornography"

     "Men love death.  In everything they make, they hollow out a central
     place for death, let its rancid smell contaminate every dimension of
     whatever still survives.  Men especially love murder.  In art they 
     celebrate it and in life they commit it."

This quote is quite representative of this particular piece - in fact, it's
just the introdoctory paragraph.

This quote from this one piece does not represent all of Dworkin's work, of
course.  But it was deemed to be the one work of Dworkin's worthy of
inclusion in the volume I got it from - not positive what that was anymore
("Take Back the Night", perhaps?  Not sure).
Xref: sparky soc.women:22247 soc.men:22276 alt.child-support:4190
From: mstemper@ems.cdc.com (Michael Stemper)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Duck and Jive (was Re
Date: 6 Jan 93 18:36:47 GMT
Reply-To: mstemper@ems.cdc.com
Followup-To: soc.women
Organization: Empros Systems International, a division of Ceridian

In article <C0DzKr.Ix0@srgenprp.sr.hp.com>, sam@sad.hp.com (Vicky Hansen) writes:
>implying.  Those fathers who had a great relationship with their children
>before the divorce and who, therefore, got joint custody are certainly

There is an implication being made here that is false. A father having
a great relationship with his kids does not translate into a father who
gets joint custody.

-- 
#include <Standard_Disclaimer.h>
Michael F. Stemper
Power Systems Consultant
mstemper@ems.cdc.com
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: an4207@anon.penet.fi
Subject: FOR SM ESPECIALLY IN INDIANAPOLIS AREA
Organization: Anonymous contact service
X-Anonymously-To: soc.women
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 05:01:45 GMT




Tired of posting personal ads and receiving no reply? Well, maybe

because this is a wrong place for it!



Then, where is the right place? The answer is NIGHT CLUBS. Indianapolis

has some finest clubs in the country, such as Shooters (Yes, just like

the one seen on Melrose Place), PepperMint Twist, the Hop. Great dance

floor, inexpensive beer, plenty of women, loads of fun.



So if you live in Indy area, and want to hang out with other SM's

(mostly professionals between 20 and 30) in Indianapolis's hottest

spots, please drop me a note. 



Well, even if you are not from this area, you may still drop me a note

so that you may contact me when you visit here.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind system, any replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Newsgroups: soc.women,sci.skeptic,alt.sexual.abuse.recovery,talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,talk.bizarre
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: We Have Been Trying to WARN YOUN!!!!
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 18:01:42 GMT

   Then why don't you send YOUN email and stop bugging the rest of us?

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: A question about women driving
Followup-To: soc.women
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 03:48:36 GMT

I spent the holidays with my family and got to talking to my mother
about this topic.

My dad has retired early due to health problems and a good deal from
his company which was down-sizing and offering early retirement to
anyone working there 30 years.  My mother works only part time (after
working full time most of her life) due to health problems.  Both my
parents can drive, although my mom has arthritis in her left hip which
makes it hard for her to drive a straight-shift (she has trouble with
the clutch).

Since my dad has retired, he's been taking my mom to work and picking
her up in the evenings.  She likes and appreciates this since,
otherwise, she would have to park several blocks from where she works
and either take a shuttle which only runs every 30 minutes or walk.
This isn't a problem.

What has happened, though, is that my dad has gotten so that he never
wants my mother to drive.  He drives them to church, shopping, when
they go on trips, everywhere.  It's gotten to the point that he drives
my mom even to the hair salon and sits in the car waiting for her.
They have two cars, a sedan and a station wagon.  The sedan is an
automatic so she has no trouble driving it.  The few times when she's
mentioned that she should be driving some, my dad has said that the
man should drive when they're together.  When she's said that she
should go by herself, he always says that he doesn't mind and drives
her where she needs to go.

I don't suppose that this would be a problem except that my mother
appears to be losing confidence about her ability to drive and go
places by herself.  I don't really understand this, but that's the way
it appears.

I'm curious about a couple of things.  Do any soc.women posters or
readers see this happening to them or their parents?  My mom says that
she knows several women where she works who have the same problem
with their husbands.  Secondly, does anyone have any helpful advice?

The few times my mom has asserted herself, my dad has been offended
and sulked.  He seems to think he's just being nice and he's being
mistreated for his kindness.  My dad stays busy with his churchwork
and his hobbies, so I don't think boredom is the problem.  My parents
have a very good relationship for the most part, but this seems to be
really bothering my mother.

Basically, my sisters and I have told my mom to stick up for herself,
but she doesn't want my dad to be upset with her, so she in effect has
stopped driving altogether.  (Both my sisters live close to my
parents, but my mother can't drive their cars since they both have
straight-shifts, so she can't "practice" driving with their cars.)

Xref: sparky soc.women:22287 soc.men:22333
From: dmsilev@athena.mit.edu (Daniel M Silevitch)
Subject: Re: "Satanic Ritual Abuse" in the media
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 02:21:13 GMT

In article <1inm0nINNs4b@shelley.u.washington.edu> cloister@stein.u.washington.edu (cloister bell) writes:
>mjw@mailbox.eng.ufl.edu (Mike Wohlgemuth) writes:
>
>>kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
>>>                                                  (Some of the
>>>psychotherapists claim that tens or even hundreds of thousands of
>>>ritual murders are involved.)
>
>>I've seen people claim that between 50,000 and 2,000,000 ritual murders
>>take place every year in the U.S.  Now let's see:
>
>>50,000 murders / 365 days a year / 50 states = 2.74 ritual murders per
>>day in each state.
>
>>I think not.
>
>why not?  from what i understand of satanic cults, they freqently breed
>children for this sort of thing.  the mothers can be kept in seclusion for the
>duration of the pregnancy, the authorities need never know the child was even
>born.  who's going to notice the disappearance of kids who no one knew ever
>existed anyway?  and given the size and level of organization of satanic cults
>(at least, what's reported anyway) 2.74/day doesn't seem like an overly high
>number to me.

Look at the other end of the scale. The population of the U.S. is ~250,000,000.
If there are 2,000,000 ritual murders every years, that means that every year,
approximately 1% of the entire U.S. population is ritualistically murdered.
Somewhat large-scale to be completely unnoticed, right?

Daniel Silevitch                                    dmsilev@athena.mit.edu
Massachusetts Institute of Technology


Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.child-support
From: sam@sad.hp.com (Vicky Hansen)
Subject: Re: Duck and Jive (was Re
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 15:12:27 GMT
Organization: HP Sonoma County (SRSD/MWTD/MID)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL7]
Followup-To: soc.women,soc.men,alt.child-support

aaron.l.hoffmeyer (noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com) wrote:
: statistics from the US
: Census Bureau show that 90.2% of all fathers with joint custody and
: ample visitation with their children pay their child support on-time,
: all the time. 
: when children are denied visitation with a non-custodial parent (AKA as
: Dad), child support compliance drops to a mere 44%.  Yet, over and
: over, I keep seeing that people separate these two issues.  The
: statistics are telling.  If you want full compliance of child support,
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: let fathers be involved with their children, let them see their
: children, let them care for their children.  When that happens, child
: support is paid.
: is it a woman's "responsibility" to ensure that her children
: maintain a relationship with their father after a divorce
: Are any of them guilty of
: shirking on this responsibility?  

I agree that the statistics are telling but maybe not what you are 
implying.  Those fathers who had a great relationship with their children
before the divorce and who, therefore, got joint custody are certainly
likely to pay support.  However, not all fathers who have little visitation
are being 'denied' such rights by the mother -- some don't bother asking.

My ex asked for 2 hours every other Sunday.  I insisted on overnight visits
so the boys could get to know their father for the first time.  I got my way.
I did not insist that he exercise his 'right' to 6 weeks in the summer and
he was grateful.  He has paid support regularly but I can see where the
matchup of no support and no visitation could be a problem that did not
start with the mother.
From: lairdpg@lub001.lamar.edu
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Looking for Female (SORRY FOLKS)
Date: 10 Jan 93 19:14:03 +1700
Organization: Lamar University - Beaumont

In article <1993Jan10.162216.1933@lub001.lamar.edu>, lairdpg@lub001.lamar.edu writes:
> White Male seeking e-mail contact/penpal with whit female age 25-35 for
> e-mail fun and sharing.  I'm not looking for a filthy mouthed babe, nor
> do I particularly care for e-mail fantasy.  Just wish to find someone nice
> to write to who is christian minded and not into bars/drugs.  I'm a
> professional in the Computer field.  I am looking for someone who is not
> *Domineering
> *Pushy
> *Prone to correcting my english (a big no-no)
> 
> All other problems can probably be worked out.  If you would be interested
> in corresponding with me, please send me e-mail at--------->
>  
> lairdpg@lub001.lamar.edu
> 
> Please, don't post about this here on the net as I don't usually read the
> newsgroup.  Do it e-mail.  Thanks.  Bye.   Hope to hear from someone.
> 
> - Phillip -

I posted the above here.  I am very sorry to have done that.  Someone reminded
me that my post doesn't belong here.  It will not happen again.  In fact, I'll
just drop from USENET and not be back.  Good luck to you all and again, I am 
so very sorry to have posted such a disgusting message as the one above.  But,
I was serious in my request.  Please forgive me.  I will not respond to e-mail
based upon this above post due to e-mail I recieved saying it was not
appropriate for the newsgroup.
  
So long, all............................
From: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Date: 6 Jan 93 16:55:34 GMT
Reply-To: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <24700@galaxy.ucr.edu> starbuck@galaxy.ucr.edu (starbuck) writes:
>In article <1993Jan4.221801.19573@news.columbia.edu> rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:
>
>>>> In article <24660@galaxy.ucr.edu> starbuck@galaxy.ucr.edu (starbuck) writes:
>
>>I made no claim that my "pet theory" is absolute truth.
>>I did not make an attempt to prove it in any deceptive manner.
>>Learn to recognise the difference between stating your opinion as your 
>>opinion, and stating your opinion as if it were fact, with lying
>>statistics to back it up.
>>
>>The reasons I hold my opinions were not relevant to the
>>disputing of the above arguement, so I saw no need to state them.
>>Perhaps I should not have stated my opinions at all. This was, however,
>>an error in style at worst, not deliberate misdeception,hypocrisy, or
>>slandering of others.
>>
>>Robert Johnston
>
>Whoa, Johnston.  When I posted I simply stated that I had clipped
>the information from soc.feminism and it might be of interest.
>I doubt the studies done on female headed families are bogus.
>They surley are not the whole story but significant none  the less.
>
>Deliberate misdecption?  hypocrisy?  slandering of others?  Hardly.
>In may just be life is not the way you see it.   Perhaps these 
>studies point out a truth that disagrees with you feminist dogma? 
>

A conservative who knows how to use an editor is a dangerous thing.
Led me repeat what you have so conveniently edited out.

What you posted was not valid, lacking any controls whatsoever.

You cite statistics saying female led households are the cause
of (crime, JD? I don't remember, you edited this out too.)

You forget to cite that 80% (i think this may be somewhat off,
but I am sure it is at least 60%) of single mother led households
live in poverty

You show NO statistics for households led by single fathers,
poor single fathers,well to do single mothers, or joint 
parentship by two or more females.

Without such controls it is impossible that your study and conclusion
come from a reputable source.

I am not attacking you as a feminist. i am attacking you as a 
scientist. The US is last in the industrialized democracies in 
teaching math and science, and your total lack of knowledge of any sort
of scientific method is but one more bit of evidence in this
direction.

Robert Johnston

>starbuck 
>
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism
From: dmcanzi@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi)
Subject: Re: I confess!... *HE'S* guilty!!!!
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 05:08:55 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.164453.25377@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
)bouche2@server.uwindsor.ca (BOUCHER DAVID            ) writes:
)gf:
)| >there is a very large body of feminist writing which is at
)| >least as rational as any other kind of writing on the same
)| >subjects (mostly, politics and social issues).  
)
)db:
)| There is a very large body of RELIGIOUS writing that meet those same
)| criteria, going all the way back to the Talmud and the writings of
)| Thomas Aquinas.  There are volumes of infinitely logical, precise and
)| elegant discursions on such topics as the obligations of slaves, whether or
)| not christians must be circumcised, and how many angels can dance on the 
)| head of a pin.  
)
)So what?  The logic here is: some religious writing is
)rational; some feminist writing is rational; therefore, all
)feminist writing is religious.  Surely you can do better
)than this if you try.

You can do better than this, Gordon.

The logic of his argument is actually this: some religious writing is
rational, therefore just because some feminist writing is rational, it
doesn't prove that feminism is not religious.

Anyway, the reason this exchange attracted my attention is that it gave
me a case of deja vu.  A recent exchange in alt.politics.homosexuality
involved the following arguments and counterarguments:

(1) Homosexuality is wrong because it's unnatural -- animals don't do it.
(2) Actually, animals *do* engage in homosexuality.
(3) Animals engage in gang-rape too... does that mean we should
    accept gang-rape?

You have misinterpreted the intent of David Boucher's argument in the
same way that the author of argument (3) misinterpreted the intent
behind argument (2).
-- 
David Canzi				"Shut up," he explained. -- John 6:43