HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jbf@wts.com (Jens B. Fiederer)
Subject: Re: Stranded on an Island (fo
Organization: Wegmans Transaction Services
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 21:39:06 GMT

In article <1992Jul17.182729.16682@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>
>I am simply saying that laws should be passed to restrict the woman's
>right to just "walk away".  If the child support laws make a man
>"more like" a woman by requiring him to support the child as well,
>then it seems fair to me that a law should be passed to make a
>woman "more like" a man.  To wit, that she should not have the right
>to make a unilateral decision about an abortion.
>
>And nobody seems to agree with me.  It sounds like, from the replies
>I've gotten, that both men and women still support a double standard
>as far as women are concerned.  They want women to have equal rights,
>but they still want them to be less responsible, as if they were still
>being taken care of by men.
>
If it makes you feel better, I agree with some of your argument, although
I am diametrically opposed to your solution.  I would continue to allow
the woman to have an abortion, and the man to "walk away" as long as the
woman is allowed to have an abortion, unless there were an agreement in
place to the contrary (in which case a woman morally opposed to abortion
would probably not want sex unless a marriage or similar agreement
existed, or she were willing to foot the bill as well as the labor...-
and a man with similar principles would have to require the agreement).

Jens
Xref: sparky soc.men:13620 soc.women:13997 alt.censorship:6183 talk.politics.misc:35502 alt.folklore.urban:19542 misc.legal:14711
From: cass8806@elan.glassboro.edu (KYLE CASSIDY)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,alt.folklore.urban,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Ed Nilges and Snuff Films?
Date: 23 Jul 92 14:27:04 GMT
Organization: Glassboro State College, Glassboro, NJ

what about a public execution -- i'm thinking of the ones which recently 
took place in romania, which were filmed and distributed world wide. is that 
a snuff film? if so, the international media is traffiking in them to a 
henious degree.
From:  (kamchar@ibm.cl.msu.edu (SunCat))
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Calling All Potential R*p*sts...
Date: 22 Jul 92 21:51:05 GMT
Organization: The computer in the back row

In article <05=mglh@lynx.unm.edu>, swells@triton.unm.edu (Ed Gruberman) writes:
> 
> In article <2882@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> tjw+@pitt.edu writes:
>      From the co-producer of several unconstitutional laws comes:
> 
>              "Quotes for Your .sig File" (Part VII)
>        
> 
>        "Most women who seek abortions become pregnant while having 
>               sex with men."
>   
>        "Considering rape as violence, not sex, evades the issue."
> 
>        "Compare women's reports of rape with women's reports of sex.  
>           They're a lot alike."
>   
>              - Catherine MacKinnon
>         
> i have one thing to say:
> 
>        what a total, complete, insufferable, incurable
>            *******BITCH!!!!!!!!************
This Catherine MacKinnon person sounds, well, a bit remarkable.  But maybe
we ought to take Martin Luther's approach, and I paraphrase:  
"If you run into the devil make fun of him.  Because the devil, proud spirit
that he is, cannot bear scorn."

SunCat kamchar@ibm.cl.msu.edu
PS things are getting *really* weird
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: sexism in health spas
Keywords: weights
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 00:11:49 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.153130.20520@unislc.uucp> kbiesel@unislc.uucp
(Karen Biesel) writes:

>The manager has the spa set up with seperate men's, women's and co-ed areas.
>The manager, a man, put all the nautilus and other single item machines in
>the men's exercise area.  This prohibits women from using the machines.

>I was ushered out of the men's gym area, needless to say.  Women have there own
>area to exercise in, I was told.  The women's gym has pulley weights that offer
>the same range of motion as the machines in the men's gym.

>OK I'm bitter.  But is this common practice throughout, to have seperate
>exercise areas for men and women?  Is it men or women who are embarrassed to
>be looked at, or is this a Utah thing?

At a club I used to belong to (the Vertical Club in Manhattan), there
was a separate area for women, on the main gym floor.  It was fenced
off; if a man went in, he was immediately kicked out.  There were also
some machines that were, in theory, designated for men only (fewer
than the number in the women's area).  However, I never saw a woman
kicked off any of these machines.

You might try getting a female friend to go to the club and speak with
a salescritter; she should ask if the club has Nautilus machines she
can use.  If they say they do, have her get it in writing, then nail
them for false advertising.

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
From: charleen@ADS.COM (Charleen Bunjiovianna)
Subject: Re: soc.feminism
Organization: The Original Estrogen-Crazed Lust Bunnies
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 19:12:44 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.231823.29183@ccu.umanitoba.ca> kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts) writes:
>One of the moderators soc.feminism told me that they had very few complaints
>about the way that group is moderated.  I found that surprising.

What would be the point of complaining?  Who oversees the behavior of
moderators?

Charleen

--
Q: What is a string quartet made up of?
A: A good violinist, a bad violinist, an ex-violinist and someone who 
   hates violinists.
Xref: sparky soc.men:13585 soc.women:13958 alt.censorship:6156 talk.politics.misc:35392
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.discrimination,soc.women,misc.legal
Subject: Self-Defense
Date: 23 Jul 92 03:51:53 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Followup-To: misc.legal,soc.men,soc.women
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Jul22.225007.275@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.104724.1@acad3.alaska.edu> fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks) writes:
>)You're worried about playing FAIR all of a sudden?  Murder is still
>)murder no matter how it's done.
>
>Self defense isn't murder.  However, killing someone in their sleep is
>*obviously* not self defense.

Situation: You're a prisoner in a cell.  Your prisonmate, who's five
inches taller, and a hundred pounds heavier, whom you have no hope 
of defending yourself against tells you one night: "When dawn comes,
I'm going to kill you."  He then goes to sleep.  Assume that going to
a guard for assistance has proven futile in the past, and that you have
no reason to believe otherwise now.  What do you do?  What should the
law be?

It's not as obvious as you seem to think.

Followups directed out of alt.discrimination.
-- 
                      ....................................
                      ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
                      the university of chicago law school 
                      official member of the cultural elit
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity
From: fedrick@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Kelvin W. Fedrick)
Subject: Re: Right to not support
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 05:20:34 GMT

In article <7mFRoB1w164w@dogear.spk.wa.us> root@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick   ) writes:
>
>I'm not sure of other locations, but here in Washington, paternity tests
>which were made after the 'dad' had begun his support, demonstrated that
>the putative father wasn't actually the dad.
>
>It is a wise thing to demand paternity testing. 
>
 Yes indeed. I hazily recall a famous case in florida where it was determined
 that the man wasn't the father after child-support had been ordered. Upon
 trying to get this reversed, the judge essentially told him, tough luck,
 the judgement has been made and you're going to pay.

 I think this demonstrates just how dangerous this 'doing things for the
 welfare of the child' can get. It incourages courts to stick the bill
 for raising the child on anybody they can get.

-kelvin
From: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: All feminists are lesbian man-haters
Date: 22 Jul 92 01:03:41 GMT
Reply-To: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Organization: Florida State University, but I don't speak for them

In article <01GMNGHCA7QO91WGYX@vms.cis.pitt.edu> ABBST@vms.cis.pitt.edu writes:
>robert@informix.com (Robert Coleman) writes:
>>And all feminists are lesbian man-haters.
>
>Please!  You can't smear all lesbians this way!
>
>Can't you just say "most"?

This is either the most brilliantly ironic dig or the most blatant piece of
irony-impairment that I have seen in half a decade of reading USENET.

Either way, it pushes the envelope of human achievment.

-EMP
Xref: sparky soc.men:13776 soc.women:14182 alt.censorship:6365 talk.politics.misc:36256 alt.folklore.urban:19934 misc.legal:14976
From: cel@nsscmail.att.com (clayton EDward LEIHY iii)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,alt.folklore.urban,misc.legal
Subject: Dinner at Dahmer's (was: Re: Ed Nilges and Snuff Films?)P
Date: 28 Jul 92 00:00:45 GMT
Followup-To: alt.folklore.urban
Organization: NCR Systems Support Center - New Jersey

>In article <1992Jul24.154645.22624@teleride.on.ca> stevew@teleride.on.ca (Stephen M. Webb) writes:

>>Yes.  In fact, his last post was something like "I would give my right arm
>>to be invited to dinner at J. Dahmer's."  

I just heard a story (UL?) that Messr. Dahmer's last residence is
up for sale by his estate.

I understand they are having some difficulty in selling it, and it is
partly related to the previous tenant, but more directly to the
asking price:

    I heard they're asking an arm and a leg for the place.
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,alt.folklore.urban,misc.legal
From: hucke@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Matt Hucke)
Subject: Re: Ed Nilges and Snuff Films?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 23:07:05 GMT

In article <cass8806.101@elan.glassboro.edu> cass8806@elan.glassboro.edu (KYLE CASSIDY) writes:
>what about a public execution -- i'm thinking of the ones which recently 
>took place in romania, which were filmed and distributed world wide. is that 
>a snuff film? if so, the international media is traffiking in them to a 
>henious degree.

It would only qualify as snuff if the reason for the execution was so that 
a movie could be made.  The reason for the execution was that the victims
were part of the overthrown government.  They were killed for their politics,
not their talents as movie stars...

-- 
  "It begins here--an army--to bring sense to a world plagued by worse than
   thieves and murderers. This will be a good life... good enough."
             Bruce Wayne, "Batman: The Dark Knight Returns"
hucke@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu             _V_a_l_h_a_l_l_a BBS, 217-352-3682, WWIV4.21, 14.4k
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: topless?
X-To: KAREN BIESEL
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 02:39:00 GMT

kbiesel@unislc.uucp (Karen Biesel) writes...
KB> Sorry boys, you'll have to learn to live with a woody, this woman is taking
          ^^^^

I take it, then, that you do NOT object to men calling women "girls"?

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                    "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Say the best.  Think the rest!! - Troi
Xref: sparky soc.men:13658 soc.women:14037 alt.censorship:6215 talk.politics.misc:35673 alt.folklore.urban:19632 misc.legal:14736
From: fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,alt.folklore.urban,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Ed Nilges and Snuff Films?
Date: 23 Jul 92 22:08:42 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

In article <cass8806.101@elan.glassboro.edu>, cass8806@elan.glassboro.edu (KYLE CASSIDY) writes:
> what about a public execution -- i'm thinking of the ones which recently 
> took place in romania, which were filmed and distributed world wide. is that 
> a snuff film? if so, the international media is traffiking in them to a 
> henious degree.
> 

Apparently there's a FAQ in one of the cinema newsgroups that defines
a snuff film.  Most of us aren't going to know this, since this topic
is crossposted to the whole usenet (sarcasm intended).

Your example doesn't fit the definition.  === Al Sparks
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician)
Subject: Re: sexism in health spas
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 12:08:20 GMT
Organization: Society for the Preservation of E. coli
Keywords: weights

Well, to add to the confusion, I'd like to point out the Holiday/Bally
spa my friend took me to one day after we had a long day at work (we
went to sit in the hot tub).

The spa is symmetrically designed so that the lobby has the men's
locker rooms to the left, the women's the right and the "spa" area in
the center, behind.  The men's work out section is on the left side,
the women's on the right, and the pool and hot tub are in the middle.

My point?  The women's area was blocked from view from all areas by
opaque glass.  The men's area, however, could be viewed in the lobby
and in the pool area through clear glass.

Now, I am assuming that it's because some female members asked for
this setup since they didn't want anybody looking at them while they
worked out except for other people (oops...make that, "other women")
working out.

-- 
Brian Evans                |     "Bad mood, bad mood...Sure I'm in a bad mood!
bevans@carina.unm.edu      |      I haven't had sex...*EVER!*" -- Virgin Mary
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,alt.folklore.urban,misc.legal
From: dan@cae.prds.cdx.mot.com (Dan Breslau)
Subject: Re: Ed Nilges and Snuff Films?
Organization: none
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 13:11:05 GMT

ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) writes:

>Please be careful with this topic -- you might make it happen!  I've heard
>that there is a group of bored rich people who like to make urban legends
>come true.

Sounds like an urban legend to me ;-) .

Dan Breslau
dan@codex.com
Disc claimer:  "Hey!  That's my floppy!"

Newsgroups: soc.men
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Right to not support
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 16:27:46 GMT

In article <10032@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul) writes:
)In article <7mFRoB1w164w@dogear.spk.wa.us> root@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob  
)Kirkpatrick   ) writes:
)
)+ I'm not sure of other locations, but here in Washington, paternity tests
)+ which were made after the 'dad' had begun his support, demonstrated that
)+ the putative father wasn't actually the dad.
)
)And in some states, a test after-the-fact doesn't mean diddly. You made
)payments, you accepted the responsibility, they are yours.
)
)+ It is a wise thing to demand paternity testing. 
)
)Agreed.

Yep - there are two ways to become financially responsible for a child.

1)  Actually be the biological parent of the child
2)  Be shown to have ever done something resembling supporting the child
regardless of the biological relationship.

This rather reinforces my sense of the hypocrisy of the system - your mileage
may vary.

Xref: sparky soc.men:13980 soc.women:14414
From: jmoran@cfa.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Exercise wear for the abundant of flesh
Date: 31 Jul 92 12:42:56 GMT
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA


In article <1992Jul28.105024.24118@mic.ucla.edu>, brims@bnkl01.astro.ucla.edu (George Brims) writes:
> In article <1992Jul21.202437.12140@sunb10.cs.uiuc.edu> ewing@ibmb9.cs.uiuc.edu (Brandy "Bang" Ewing) writes:
> >
> >Smokers don't take care of themselves either  But how many times have you seen
> >anyone "taunt" a smoker.
> 
> I do. Actually what really annoys me is to see some fresh young attractive woman
                                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> (oops a non-PC expression there) light up. The conversation usually goes


I'd call it egomaniacal and sexist, hardly a "non-PC" expression.  Does it
equally annoy you when an unattractive woman lights up?


> "You know, you're really attractive" "Oh er.. Thank you" "But you'd be a lot
> more attractive without that fucking stupid cigarette" Usually produces a
> thoughtful silence but I don't know if I ever prompted anyone to stop. Someone


Wow! I bet you just ruin their day when you say that.  They probably go home
thinking to themselves, "Damn! I blew it.  I had the opportunity to get to
know a sexist, bothersome, condescending asshole and I blew it by smoking!  
When will I ever learn?"

I would wager that if you actually said that to most women, you'd get
a "Go fuck yourself!" much more often than a "thoughtful silence"


> who thinks like me (but I have no head for heights so it wasn't me) altered a
> billboard ad for cigarettes along the 101 freeway so that "Alive with pleasure"
> was followed by "and dying of lung cancer"
> 
> George Brims (who has every intention of living to see his grand-children
>  - unlike his dad )


If your future grand-children are lucky, you'll be just a fond memory in 
a photo album.
Xref: sparky soc.men:13830 soc.women:14255 alt.dads-rights:1630 alt.child-support:2278
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 21:24:57 EDT
From: Jennifer Brown <JLB155@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: How much $$ is enough?
Distribution: usa
 <5ysooB2w164w@dogear.spk.wa.us> <1992Jul29.001750.19857@unixg.ubc.ca>

In article <1992Jul29.001750.19857@unixg.ubc.ca>, schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart
Schultz) says:
>
>In article <5ysooB2w164w@dogear.spk.wa.us> root@dogear.spk.wa.us
>(Bob Kirkpatrick   ) writes:
>
>>> "The case concerned a Ms. Omerod who was employed as a registered
>>> nurse for 8 years before leaving her job to start a family.  She
>>> worked part-time in an unrelated field and as a volunteer during the
>>> 16 years in which her main activity was child-raising.  Upon the
>>> ending of her marriage, Ms. Omerod began retraining to prepare for
>>> the resumption of work as a nurse.
>>
>>Which seems to say that she was voluntarily unemployed, or under-
>>employed.
>
>I think Ms. Omerod's lawyer would argue that it wasn't her decision,
>it was -their- decision.  And a marriage is like a business partnership
>in that all gains and losses must be shared by both parties.
>
Yet, Mr. Omerod CANNOT be allowed to force her to continue working during
those "child-raising years", so he is "in for it" no matter what is chosen.
No matter what is chosen by BOTH people.

-Jennifer
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support
From: schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz)
Subject: Re: How much $$ is enough?
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 00:17:50 GMT

In article <5ysooB2w164w@dogear.spk.wa.us> root@dogear.spk.wa.us
(Bob Kirkpatrick   ) writes:

>> "The case concerned a Ms. Omerod who was employed as a registered 
>> nurse for 8 years before leaving her job to start a family.  She 
>> worked part-time in an unrelated field and as a volunteer during the 
>> 16 years in which her main activity was child-raising.  Upon the 
>> ending of her marriage, Ms. Omerod began retraining to prepare for 
>> the resumption of work as a nurse.
>
>Which seems to say that she was voluntarily unemployed, or under-
>employed.

I think Ms. Omerod's lawyer would argue that it wasn't her decision, 
it was -their- decision.  And a marriage is like a business partnership 
in that all gains and losses must be shared by both parties.

Morally, I agree that assets accumulated -during- the marriage 
should be divvied up fairly on divorce, but I disagree that this 
should extend beyond divorce to cover every financial effect of the 
marriage, until death.

>Using this same logic, doctors who volunteer for military service
>should be getting some hellaciously large separation benefits when
>they terminate that service.

Or how about: if the husband breaks his neck while playing football 
with the kids, should the ex-wife share his medical expenses 50/50 
for the rest of his life?  Or, if husband and wife start a successful 
business together, must its profits be shared equally after divorce 
regardless of who ends up owning the company?

I think it's pretty clear what's going on here.  Under pressure from 
women's groups, the government is trying to solve a social problem 
(poor divorced mothers) by fiat.  And that's regardless of how absurd 
the resulting conflict with any reasonable concept of personal 
responsibility.  This sort of thing seems to be going on a lot these 
days, especially in Canada, and as long as men are the ones most 
likely to lose.

-S. Schultz
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: Ed Nilges and Snuff Films?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 18:53:22 GMT

jheath@CERIS.Purdue.EDU (Jim Heath) writes:
: 
: Does anyone know why the Nazis filmed so many of their war
: crimes?  I presume the thought of the film being used as evidence
: never crossed their minds in the early years because they thought
: they would win.  Was it so Adolf and his cronies could see that
: their orders were being carried out? 

They did not believe they were crimes. The Germans have always been
known for meticulous record keeping - this is just an example.

Bill
From: stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: HammerTime (was something about Amy)
Date: 31 Jul 92 01:49:42 GMT
Distribution: na

In article <1992Jul30.190754.5008@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com>  
bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
+ In article <1992Jul28.213524.3559@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com  
(Seth Breidbart) writes:
+ 
+ )The reason that government hammers cost $600 is that the government
+ )specifies the hammers in a way that they can't be profitably made for
+ )$550.  If I want a hammer, I go to KMart and get a hammer for $2.  It
+ )breaks.  I go to Sears and get a hammer for $5.  It breaks.  Sears
+ )gives me another one free.  It doesn't break.
+ 
+ I thought $600 hammers came about mostly because of strange (but mandated)
+ governmental accounting procedures.

Nah. The contractor has to be able to produce documentation that the hammer
can stand extremes in it's environment, that it has certain dimensions,
certain weight and perhaps made of certain materials in certain percentages.
The tolerances are extremely low, and that's why they cost considerably more
than your Sears Craftsman.

Also, a lot of contractors chop the price of the original order (say, a
big ticket item like a bomber) in the anticipation of restoring those 
profits when they get the parts & service contracts. Which may well outlast
the production of the said item.

K'Char
Xref: sparky soc.men:13997 soc.women:14425