HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Subject: Re: Gender Discrimination
Followup-To: soc.men,soc.women
Organization: Aston University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL241235]
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 16:50:37 GMT

Peter Nelson (nelson_p@apollo.hp.com) wrote:

:    Both the New York Times and LA Times News services reported
:    over the weekend that when Bill Clinton was choosing an 
:    Attorney General he limited his search to only women!   
: 
:    If my employer, Hewlett Packard, had an explicit policy of
:    only opening a certain position to one sex, or systematically
:    only considering candidates of one gender for a certain job,

Sure it would happen at exactly the same speed, whatever the gender was?

:    wouldn't we be hauled into court faster than you could say,
:    "Zoe Baird"?   (I hope so!)

But what is being done is "acceptable" discrimination. (also called
"positive" and "affermative")

the terms "tit for tat" and "backlash" also sum up this attitude.

: 
:    Assuming these news reports are correct, I think it's outrageous
:    that the Clinton Administration is starting off with such a 
:    sexist prologue.  Not to mention the fact that the nation can
:    hardly be well-served by potentially denying half (or probably
:    more because most lawyers are men) of the otherwise qualified
:    candidates merely due to their gender. 
: 
:    And what effect would this have on compliance with anti-dis-
:    crimination laws, knowing that the Justice Department itself
:    was run by someone chosen by a process that violates the very 
:    statutes they are attempting to enforce?

"All genders are equal, but some are more equal than others"?

Maybe your politicians and law makes should go back and read your 
countrys constitution.
(then maybe repeal all the discrimination laws you have, both the new ones
as well as the old ones)

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Evans                                   |evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 429 9199  (Home)                    |evansmp@cs.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 359 6531 x4039 (Office)             |
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Michal - Who should protect your rights?
Date: 22 Jan 1993 02:25:36 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich) writes:

>In article <1jl0bpINNkpb@gap.caltech.edu>, peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>|> I would dearly love to have such public records more easily available.
>|> A national computerized database of birth and death records would be a 
>|> good start. I don't see that this would violate privacy since such 
>|> records are already public -- but it would greatly improve access
>|> and simplify record-keeping.  Comments anyone?

>Since the mother is the only person who can have any chance of knowing who the
>father is it must be her responsibility to inform the anyone else 
>responsible. Who else could do it but the mother?

The question was not over informing the father.  It was over making 
birth records more easily accessible by forming a national computerized
database.  Whether paternity information would be listed is a seperate
issue altogether.

-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Impressive amounts of material can be accreted in this manner.
From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: the king is dead
Date: 27 Jan 93 22:33:46 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

In article <4636@unisql.UUCP> wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie) writes:
>In article <25477@galaxy.ucr.edu> starbuck@galaxy.ucr.edu (starbuck) writes:
>>Today another entertainer exists that has the same emotional effect on women 
>>as the "King". His name is Michael Jackson.
>
>	*I* thought his name was Phil Lesh.  Or do I mean the other one?
>
>						"Spanish lady, comes to me..."
>

PPPPPHHHHHHIIIILLLLLLL!!!!!!!
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Feminist group disrupts men's meeting
X-To: DAVID CANZI
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 11:54:00 GMT
Keywords: Campus NOW Brownshirts, Enough for Dinesh D'Souza's next book

dmcanzi@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi) writes...
>In article <1992Dec22.225556.13411@rat.csc.calpoly.edu> dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.
>DU (Dave Gross) writes:
>>       Despite charges that NOW was violating the men's right to freedom of
>>association, it turned out that the women were the ones illegally being
>>blocked from entry, since under the Sunshine Law "stricktly speaking, it had
>>to be open to everyone that wanted to go" Paul Gates, a research assistant at
>>the Brecher Center for Freedom of Information was quoted as saying in the
>>*Alligator* two days later.

>No doubt this "Sunshine Law" also permits men to invade "women-only" meetings.
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

....Not!

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Gravity: It's more than just a fragrance.  It's the LAW!"
   - Will Steeves, President, GOiDS "R" We, Inc.

 * SLMR 2.1a * If it MOVES so slow, why is it called Rush hour?
From: pepke@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Male Men Bashers
Date: 27 Jan 93 00:35:23 GMT
Reply-To: pepke@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Organization: Florida State University, but I don't speak for them

In article <C1Evsp.313@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
> I write:
>>The reason I set the followups the way I did is that I want to talk about
>>the message that men get.  The message is this:
>>
>>1) If you're a self-centered jerk, you'll get plenty of dates.
>>2) It you're a nice, sensitive guy, you may at some time acquire a long-term
>>   partner who may or may not stop dating self-centered jerks.  In the mean
>>   time, you might as well watch Popeye cartoons to see what your forearms
>>   are going to look like.
>
>   Where did you get this message?   Who gave it to you?
>   Why did you believe/internalize it?   

Obviously, K-Mart must have had a 2-for-1 sale on straw men while I wasn't
looking.

I never said that I belived or internalized anything.  Nor did I say anything 
about blame or responsibility.  If you can find any such claim in what I wrote,
I will send you one-hundred American dollars in cash.  If you cannot, it would 
be honorable to admit it.

>   I'm not denying that this message exists, but it's only one of
>   an enormous number of "messages" out there; I never personally 
>   found it to be either persuasive or pervasive.

Personally, I think that there is value in discussing the messages that 
people get.  I think that it increases understanding of the way messages
work, which may help people free themselves from their control.  I think
it's a good way to analyze the patterns in society without assuming, a 
priori, that someone is to blame, that a scapegoat must be found.

-EMP
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Privacy -- and responsibility
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 20:54:22 GMT

peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>
>>In article <1jhjorINN7hj@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>>
>>>>(3) restrict his sexual life to cunnilingus only.
>>>
>>>>I disagree most emphatically with your position.  IMO, (2) and (3)
>>>>are unreasonable and sexist burdens, and (1) is downright illegal.
>>>
>>>In some states (3) is illegal, too.
>>>
>>>I never stated (1),(2), or (3). You mis-inferred them from what I wrote.
>
>>Funny, I recall you suggested (3) as a way to prevent pregnancy.
>
>No I suggested cunnilingus as a way to prevent pregnancy.
>Perhaps if you think about it some more the difference between
>"cunnilingus" and "restrict to only cunnilingus" will become 
>clear to you.


I thought about it some more, Michal.

How does cunnilingus prevent pregnancy, then?

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Xref: sparky soc.men:23244 alt.abortion.inequity:6719 alt.feminism:7620
From: bweiss@cs.arizona.edu (Beth Weiss)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Privacy -- and responsibility
Date: 25 Jan 93 18:39:36 GMT
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: U of Arizona, CS Dept, Tucson

Karl Denninger writes:
|> Not true.  She made the decision to marry OF HER OWN FREE WILL.  The other
|> party is not responsible for what she could have had as a career had she
|> chosen to continue it (note that marriage does NOT mean you must stop
|> working if you're a woman, only that it is convenient to do so if you can
|> sap off a man instead).  In fact, it could be argued that the man is owed
|> instead if the woman decided at marriage not to work -- the man was deprived
|> of some substantial portion of his funds as a result (he had to support
|> her)
|> 
|> Neither is it relavent what her standard of living would be if she had
|> stayed married if the majority of the support during the marriage came 
|> from the man.  Again, the choice to not work and continue her carrer was
|> <hers>.

In most cases, isn't it _THEIRS_, rather than hers?  For
example, he gets a great job offer, so she gives up her job
and follows him to where his new job is because they think
it's best for their family.

Another example: he quits work for a few years, and goes back
to school, while she supports them, because it's best for
their family.

Another: she quits work (or cuts back) to stay home more with
the children, because they think it's best for their family. 
[this one could be that he quits work, of course]

When one member of a married couple makes a career decision,
it's made in the context of their marriage, not in a vacuum,
and presumably with the input of the spouse.  That means it
is made with the assumption that the marriage will continue. 
Isn't that part of the basis for the community property
laws in some states: financial choices made by spouses are
made together--and both are contributing to the assets of the
marriage.

--Beth Weiss
bweiss@cs.arizona.edu
Xref: sparky soc.men:23095 alt.child-support:4657 soc.culture.british:19177
From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.child-support,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Reporting requirements for un-married mothers
Date: 22 Jan 93 06:52:47 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

steward@cup.portal.com (John Joseph Deltuvia) writes:

> 
> In the USA, CP's applying for Aid to Families with Dependent Children
> (welfare for you non-politically-correct folks :) ) must disclose the
> names of the assumed NCP's of the child(ren) or face a sanction for
> "non-cooperation".  The sanction is the reduction of the welfare grant
> by approximately 1/3.  Waivers are granted for "good cause", such as
> molestation accusations and the like.
> 
> There is a carrot as well as a stick.  If an order is entered against
> the NCP and the NCP pays, the grant is increased by up to $50/month.
> (That's total, not $50 per child).

Almost, but not quite, John.

A mother IS allowed to say that she doesn't know the father. A number
of my clients are in that category.

Also, there are some catch-22 aspects to that $50/mo thing too. See my
previous post.

Theory is one thing, practice is another thing entirely.

---
Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Privacy -- and responsibility
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 01:41:55 GMT

In article <1jkh05INNegv@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>>In article <1jfln7INNehp@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>>The assumption that a child has a right to be supported by both its parents.
>>>Is that sexist?
>
>>Yes! Compared to the results obtained by regular application of (fault-based)
>>legal liability principles, the statutes bestow a windfall on women, and exact 
>>a corresponding penalty from men. Sexism, pure and simple.
>
>The statutes are intended to support children, not bestow a windfall on women.
>Perhaps they are failing in their intent.  

In many cases (at least in Michigan), the laws we're talking about were passed
before abortion became safe and legal. At the time these laws were passed, 
their intent was benign and non-sexist. It is the fact that the laws have
REMAINED for the most part intact, even as society's attitudes and behavior 
wrt reproduction has been transformed around them, that raises strong 
suspicions of a sexist bias against men.

>Or perhaps it is the execution of
>the statutes that has failed.  I tend to think it is the latter.  Perhaps 
>implementing better accounting of the current system (each set of parents 
>pays for own children, where possible) would improve things.  Several 
>proposals for such accounting are under discussion in soc.men.  

That's just mollification. In the absence of any unusual negligence, fraud or 
coercion on his part, a man in the hypothetical scenario we've been discussing 
shouldn't be paying child support AT ALL. Better accounting of child support 
is just crumbs from Massa's table. Emancipation is the RIGHT solution.

>I prefer to 
>try to fix the current ssystem rather than adopting a more socialistic 
>system.

How is making EACH person INDIVIDUALLY responsible for their OWN decisions,
and *ONLY* their own decisions, a "socialist system"? Do you even know what 
the term means? Or is it just an insulting incantation you use when you can't
think of anything else to say?

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: soc.men,talk.rape
From: "amy lynn young-leith" <alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Drunk Sex = Rape?
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 00:21:19 -0500

In article <Jan.27.17.20.37.1993.25533@net.bio.net> charleen@net.bio.net (Charleen Bunjiovianna) writes:
>"More than likely true"?  Please explain this.  What is so instantly
>credible about a rape charge?  Why does presumption of innocence go
>right out the window?

"More than likely true."  Means that 50% of the cases filed are
probably filed with the reasonable basis for doing so. 

Nothing is instantly credible about ANYTHING.  That is why I'm saying,
if you had been paying attention, that one should not socially convict
and execute someone before they even make it into a court room.  I
have been saying that innocence should NOT go out the window, and that
the media and people in general would do good to pay a little more
attention to this "innocent until proven guilty" clause. 

amy


-- 
alyoung@kiwi.indiana.edu	        	Occupation:  Lifetime Student
*****************************************************************************
*This post was made on personal time and has nothing to do whatsoever with  *
*              the attitudes or opinions of Indiana University.             *
*****************************************************************************
Xref: sparky soc.men:23172 alt.feminism:7565 soc.singles:37677
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism,soc.singles
Subject: Re: The Nice Guy Syndrome (was: Re: Male Men Bashers)
Date: 24 Jan 1993 02:12:52 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:

>That's both a good point and a particularly good way of putting it--I'd
>suggest that it goes even a little further than that, since most "jerks"
>never actually go out of circulation; at least the ones I've known
>generally haven't stopped circulating no matter what their relationship
>status was--one of the more impressive classic "jerk" type was
>definitely always actively seeking new conquests, even if he was already
>engaged to several women at the time and I've known a reasonable number
>who weren't dissuaded by little details like being married.

Such a good point I thought I'd paraphrase it.  The "nice guys" 
get happily married and go out of circulation.  The "jerks" are still
out there dating.

-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Impressive amounts of material can be accreted in this manner.
Xref: sparky soc.men:23192 alt.abortion.inequity:6700 alt.feminism:7583
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Privacy -- and responsibility
Date: 24 Jan 93 15:29:56 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.C1D71w.8wF

peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>
>>peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>>x73rl@ll.mit.edu ( Rick LaFave) writes:
>>>
>>>>I've said in the past that there is an inconsistancy between saying that he 
>>>>has no rights as far as the z/e/f is concerned and demanding he support the 
>>>>resulting child.  If support is demanded, then he must have some rights 
>>>>associated with the z/e/f, if he has no such rights, then support should 
>>>>not be mandated.
>>>
>>>I agree that the situation is not a good one.  However I find the 
>>>alternatives worse.  Either (1) men get control over prengnacy and abortion,
>>>thereby women lose bodily autonomy.  Or (2) children go unsupported by
>>>one or more of their parents, thereby either living in poverty or becoming
>>>a burden on society at large (or both).  
>
>>does "free choice" really mean "choice without cost," to you?
>
>No.  Woman are liable for 1/2 the cost and 1/2 the effort of parenting.

No.  Women are liable for the cost but none of the effort.

Do *you* propose that women *should* be liable for exactly 1/2 the cost
and 1/2 the effort of parenting?  Does that imply that men are liable
for exactly 1/2 the cost and 1/2 the effort?  Does a father who is willing
and qualified to provide 1/2 or more of the effort have to pay MORE than
1/2 the cost?


Why do you have no response to my statement?

>>A woman who has free choice should not be able to commit a man's life
>>to her decision.  If a fetus is not a person, and a fetus can be legally
>>aborted, then the woman has the *responsibility* -- balanced by her 
>>*unilateral right* -- to weigh the potential child's future interests 
>>in her decision whether to continue the pregnancy.
>>
>>Or does "free choice" really mean "choice without cost," to you?


Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: era@csn.org (Ed Arnold)
Subject: REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE
Originator: era@teal.csn.org
Keywords: Extremists, Christian Right, Amendment 2
Reply-To: era@csn.org (Ed Arnold)
Organization: Citizens Project; Colorado Springs, CO
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 01:47:20 GMT

We of the Citizens Project (Colorado Springs, CO) are looking for people
who could assist us in re-distributing the Citizens Project Newsletter
to non-Internet computer services.  If you have an account on any such
services (CompuServe, FidoNet, Genie, Prodigy, America Online, and others)
and are willing to help us, please let us know via return email to
era@ncar.ucar.edu.

The Citizens Project is a Colorado Springs, CO - based group of volunteers
who seek to prevent extremists from eliminating our fundamental freedoms,
in the face of growing political and religious intolerance in Colorado.
--
Ed Arnold * Boulder, CO * 303-497-1253(voice,weekday) * 303-494-6949(voice)
internet: era@csn.org * compuserve: internet:era@csn.org * bitnet: era@ncario
-- 
Ed Arnold * Boulder, CO * 303-497-1253(voice,weekday) * 303-494-6949(voice)
internet: era@csn.org * compuserve: internet:era@csn.org * bitnet: era@ncario
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: The Nice Guy Syndrome (was: Re: Male Men Bashers)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 19:30:19 GMT

In article <C1KLzK.KsF@news.cso.uiuc.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
>intensit@netlink.cts.com (Michael J. Callahan) writes:
>
>>levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
>>> Let me also point out that there are certain parts of the country in
>>> which an older woman is essentially unmarriageable, unless she has
>>> an extremely valued physical appearance. I base this conclusion on
>>> knowing, in two such geographical areas, middle-aged women who are
>>> handsome (although not *standardly* beautiful), personable,
>>> socially skilled, intelligent, well-groomed (all these good things) --
>>> and yet appear to have resigned themselves, unwillingly, to singleness.
>>> 
>>> (To paraphrase Horace Greeley, go West... :-) )
>
>>  Excuse me.  Could you please tell me where?
>
>The "go West" is instructions to the *woman*. 

Interesting, I remember -go west young man-, but not the above.

>                                             The sections of the
>country I were talking about were New York City and the Midwest.

Odder still, I keep hearing how the New Yorkers are so much more
human and friendly, and how they are willing to help those in need.
I guess this does not extend to marrying an older women.

>Here in the Midwest (where I have fortunately or unfortunately
>been living for the past four years) it seems that middle-aged
>women who are a size 20 don't date -- whatever else they have
>going for them. (This was very definitely not the case in the Silicon
>Valley.) 

The thing about dating is the discrimination is not only allowed,
but actively required. I keep hearing how the women have problems
finding anything but abusive bozos to date, perhaps these are poor
choices to begin with. Guys don't have it any easier. Read the
singles columns sometimes, women usually have much more exacting
requirements than men.

The point is that you ideally would date those who you like whom
you might potentially get in a long term relationship with. For some
reason I tend to prefer blondes, don't ask why. So I would probably
give preference if my choices were a blonde and a brunette. I do
not draw any hard lines here, last week I went to a Keith Richards
concert with a black-haired woman I know in SF. 

Dating is not an equal-opportunity public service, it is a matter
of personal preferance.


Rich

payner@netcom.com



Newsgroups: soc.men