HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: eisrael@klingon.East.Sun.COM (Elias Israel - SunSelect Engineering)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Drunk Sex = Rape ? (was Re: Mysogynist
Date: 21 Jan 1993 16:08:17 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: eisrael@klingon.East.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: klingon.east.sun.com

In article 15773@aston.ac.uk, evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans) writes:
>Elias Israel - SunSelect Engineering (eisrael@klingon.East.Sun.COM) wrote:
>: What this amounts to is
>: the ability to retroactively rescind consent.
>
>Is this ability desirable?
>(after all this is a great way to avoid responsibility for making mistakes.
>which after all prevents people from actually LEARNING not to make the
>same mistake in future)

To some people, I think the idea that a woman could retroactively rescind consent
is desirable. I can think of various reasons for it, ranging from the desperately
cynical ("Men should keep their grubby hands offa women and anything we can
do to discourage them is a good idea.") to the well-meaning but misguided
("Encouraging women to speak out will enhance the awareness of `rape culture'.")
to the purely practical ("Sometimes women don't say `no' when they mean `no' and
we should encourage them to say so if they feel that way. After all, better
late than never.")

The problem as I see it is that this is another attempt to "promote equality"
that amounts to little more than "an eye for an eye." After all, you don't fix
a flat tire by letter the air out of its mates.

Elias Israel
eisrael@east.sun.com
From: amigan@cup.portal.com (Mike - Medwid)
Newsgroups: soc.men,
Subject: Re: The Nice Guy Syndrome (was: Re: Male Men Bashers)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 19:33:31 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: world
  <1993Jan23.054955.17246@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
  <1jstv4INNl7l@gap.caltech.edu> <1993Jan26.040900.20453@microsoft.com>

One thing I learned working with mens groups and so on, was to own the
"shadow side" of my personality.  You see, I look like Richie Cunningham
and have acted pretty much like the same.  Yet inside of me, there is 
a self-centered, willful, wildman..a veritable..jerk!  And realizing 
that I am an amalgum of characters rather than just a "nice guy" was
an important step in my growth.  "Nice guy" is a role that people get
locked into.  It's a limiting stereotype.  Beyond rigid roles is 
freedom and a sense of excitement.  It is attractive to people in
general; fortunately including beautiful intelligent females.  

Complaining about the jerk/nice-guy thing is a losing proposition.  
Yawwwwwwwwn!
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: What does "Male-dominated society" mean?
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 05:39:43 GMT

In article <1k287cINNp1v@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> kamchar@ibm.cl.msu.edu (SunCat) writes:
)Thought I'd share this.  From _Man!_ magazine winter 1992.
)A review of susan Faludi's _Backlash_ by Davis Taylor.
)
)
)..
)   What is not well understood outside of the men's movement is that the  
)patriarchal system brought into our awareness by the women's movement is  
)not a much better deal for most men than it is for most women.  As Robert  
)Moore says in his book _King, Warrior, Magician, Lover_, the feminist  
)critique that the patriarchy is out to destroy women is half right, but  
)the patriarchy is out to destroy men, too.

So far so good.


  It is a dehumanizing and  
)life-sucking system, whether one happens to be male or female. 

Yep.

 Yes,  
)patriarchy is an expression of the masculine, not the feminine.

Ooops!

Sorry, I'm not convinced that 'the patriarchy' is 'an expression of the
masculine'.

I refer to talk about 'The System' rather than the patriarchy - it tends
to be lest sexist, usually.
 
Actually, 'The Patriarchy' should really refer to 'Father Rule', as I
understand the technical definiton.  I'm not very convinced that father's
rule much nowadays.
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek)
Subject: Re: Drunk Sex = Rape ? (was Re: Mysogynist Bullshit)
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 15:49:16 GMT

rfs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (richard.f.j.soyack) writes:

>I believe this became law as a result of a court case.  My
>favorite example of how dumb this law is is a NY case in which
>some guy got drunk at a bar and got into an accident.  The
>drunk, or his family (I don't remember if he died in the
>accident) sued and criminal procedures were brought against
>the bartender who served the drinks, and the owner of the bar,
>who wasn't even in the bar when the drinks were served.  One
>jury let the bartender go, while the owner's jury found the
>owner guilty.  Isn't it wonderful when our government
>legislates morality.

But what about the farmer who planted the grain that was purchased by the
distillery that supplied the bar?


Paul Ciszek                      No nation was ever drunk when wine
                                 was cheap.
pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu                            --Thomas Jefferson
Xref: sparky soc.men:23219 talk.rape:3127
From: aaldrich@encore.com (Al Aldrich)
Subject: Re: The Nice Guy Syndrome (was: Re: Male Men Bashers)
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 17:42:51 GMT

roarf@stud.cs.uit.no (Just this guy) writes:

>|> Or as one of the [few] women I work with put it....
>|>   my women friends think that working at microsoft would be great...
>|>   men, men, men...and the men/woman ratio [we're in MS-DOS/Windows]
>|>   is good.  But...the intersection of the set of men who are desirable
>|>   [in terms of personality, interests, etc] with the set of men who
>|>   are available is usually null.
>|> 
>|>   Or, if a man is available...it's usually for cause.
>|> 

>Meaning that if you meat a nice guy who you like and who is free
>you automatically decide "there must be something wrong with
>this guy"...

I don't think that was the meaning.. I think the meaning was
`all the good ones are taken'.. I have heard this from many single
women as well..

al

-- 
Al Aldrich aaldrich@encore.com 305-797-2335
"Mythology: The body of a primitive people's beliefs concerning its
origin, early history, heroes, deities and so forth, as distinguished
from the true accounts which it invents later." -- Ambrose Bierce
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.child-support
From: garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod)
Subject: Re: Reporting requirements for un-married mothers
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 18:27:24 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.122554.5399@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod) writes:
> In article <74120@cup.portal.com>, 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

...
    I use the term AFDC for AFDC, but welfare for any government/state
hand-out, including AFDC, food stamps, WIC, etc


For the record, the requirements imposed on states with regard to
child support and asking for father`s names (no requirement thereof)
can be found in the Federal Register, Vol 56, pages 22,353-5, 1991.

There are requirements regarding how billing may be made to establish
paternity and how the state can require the child and the parties
to submit to genetic testing in contested paternity, exceptions for
cause. 
On p 22354 there is requirement that the first $50 of payments goes
to the CP.

THERE IS NOTHING I CAN SEE THAT REQUIRES ANY STATE OR ANY RECIPIENT
OF WELFARE TO ESTABLISH PATERNITY.

     I personally believe that society should not allow mothers to
sponge off society without naming the father. (Of course, exceptions
for cause.)

If you don`t have access to the Federal Register, then the regulations
can be found at CFR 302.56 for child support, CFR 302.70 for paternity.

David Garrod

Xref: sparky soc.men:23321 alt.feminism:7664 soc.singles:38097
From: aaron@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism,soc.singles
Subject: Re: The Nice Guy Syndrome (was: Re: Male Men Bashers)
Date: 27 Jan 93 09:29:12 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England

Michal Leah Peri (peri@cco.caltech.edu) wrote:
: >  Just because someone is available for dating doesn't mean they are a jerk.
: 
: Certainly not.  However, past a certain age (say, two standard deviations 
: above the mean age of marriage), one would be wise to consider *why* a 
: certain person is "available for dating".  There may be a really good 
: reason (eg, one of the sweetest people I know was widowed at the age of
: 25).  Or they may be a jerk.  Let the datee beware.

Or just a good old Nice Guy who keeps on getting LJBF'd for a Jerk.
 
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
From: gds@york.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Male Men Bashers
Originator: gds@york.cs.ucla.edu
Reply-To: gds@cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner)
Organization: in your face!
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 93 00:47:36 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.222612.6430@adobe.com> kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall) writes:
>1) If you're a self-centered jerk, you'll get plenty of dates but no
>   relationships.

I know self-centered jerks (of both sexes).  Some of them get plenty
of dates *and* relationships, but either they do not last as long as
they would like, or the quality of the relationships is generally not
what they want (although some claim otherwise).  So, they are unhappy
from the standpoint of not having what they want, but satisfied (if
not happy) from the standpoint of having someone, while others (nice
guys) complain about not having anyone.  In my experience, nice guys
(of both sexes) have less (sometimes much less) dates and
relationships, and are generally unhappy from the standpoint about not
having anybody (although not necessarily unhappy about life in
general).  When they do find someone they're generally happier (about
their relationships) than the self-centered jerks.

>2) If you're an honest, caring person (oops, I changed the wording!), you
>   will most likely find a life-long companion if you turn your attention
>   away from the low-self-esteem women who are still looking toward the
>   self-centered jerks.  Thanks to the women's movement 8-> more women
>   care about their own happiness and quality of life and do not resign
>   themselves to the hanging-onto-the-first-jerk-they-find-because-they-are
>   afraid-they'd-never-find-anyone-else-and-they-are-nothing-without-a-man
>   syndrome.

In my experience, if you're an honest, caring person, you will be more
likely to attract (in the sense of making acquaintances) like people.
Some of these may turn out to be friends, some good friends, some SOs,
and some people you'll never see again.  Turning your attention away
from the low-self esteem jerks will give you some peace of mind (at
least from the standpoint of not having to deal with jerks any more),
but in and of itself may not enable you to pair up with a compatible
companion.

>   In the meantime, get a life, get involved, build friendships -
>   women can be more than just dates, they can be friends.

Right.  However, I think the media subtly encourages us to find a
companion even if we might be otherwise happy without one.  The "not
having a companion" can lead to dissatisfaction, especially if most of
your honest, caring friends have companions.  (In other words, "what's
wrong with me?")  I liked the reasons someone gave in a past post for
why people don't form relationships, but I would add to them having no
access to or no knowledge of available, compatible, potential partners.
A good % of people I know would make a good partner for someone, but
there isn't a compatible someone that they would meet in the general
course of their everyday life.

--gregbo
From: kamchar@ibm.cl.msu.edu (SunCat)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: What does "Male-dominated society" mean?
Date: 26 Jan 93 02:38:36 GMT
Organization: Michigan State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: isnext15.cl.msu.edu

Thought I'd share this.  From _Man!_ magazine winter 1992.
A review of susan Faludi's _Backlash_ by Davis Taylor.


..
   What is not well understood outside of the men's movement is that the  
patriarchal system brought into our awareness by the women's movement is  
not a much better deal for most men than it is for most women.  As Robert  
Moore says in his book _King, Warrior, Magician, Lover_, the feminist  
critique that the patriarchy is out to destroy women is half right, but  
the patriarchy is out to destroy men, too.  It is a dehumanizing and  
life-sucking system, whether one happens to be male or female.  Yes,  
patriarchy is an expression of the masculine, not the feminine.  But it is  
an expression of the immature masculine, or as Moore says, "It expresses  
the stunted masculine fixated at immature levels.  Patriarchy is based on  
fear--the boys's fear, the immature masculine's fear--of women, to be  
sure, but also fear of men.  Boys fear women.  They also fear real men."
..

Ever heard anything like that before?

=========SunCat++++     | kamchar@ibm.cl.msu.edu
"The ultimate goal of the environmental movement and the new space  
movement is exactly the same:  a clean, green planet Earth, a safe and  
fitting home not only for the human race, but for all the vast diversity  
of living forms that make up our world."
--Ben Bova _The High Road_
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Privacy -- and responsibility
From: <RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Wednesday, 27 Jan 1993 07:34:37 EST
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

->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.
-
-You presume much.
-
-Further, when such a decision is made, and then the marriage ends, <both>
-spouses are impacted negatively.  Therefore, this is also a specious
-argument for increased support.
-
-You also ignore the case where a husband would <prefer> not to have a
-parasitical relationship (both partners working) yet the woman refuses to go
-out and practice her skills in the marketplace.  It happens (trust me;
-first-hand experience here).
-
---
-Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
-Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900]

  This is a very good point.  When we make up laws we all have some
typical case in mind, but the rules also apply to other cases not like the
one we had in mind.  If a woman does in fact makes a decision not to have a
career out of deference to her husband's wishes, or as a joint decision,
then it does make sense for her to ask that he take responsibility.
But there ARE other cases. I TOO know first hand where the woman refuses to
have a career or a full time job though there is no good reason for it, but
the man is STILL stuck with the financial responsibilty for what is her
unilateral decision.  And why is THAT fair?

Rohit Parikh
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Privacy -- and responsibility
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 20:17:34 GMT

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).  


Either (1) you've listed all alternatives; or
       (2) you've repeatedly ignored everything posted.


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?

Either (1) women should be treated as responsible and competent; or
       (2) they shouldn't.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: adoption rules
Date: 26 Jan 1993 01:27:14 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

bweiss@cs.arizona.edu (Beth Weiss) writes:

>Scenario: Woman has baby she knows she can't support, and wishes to
>give up for adoption.  She claims she doesn't know who the father
>is.  
>Now what?   

>Options:
>2) Force her to list all possible fathers and contact them all to
>see what they want to do.  If a possible father wants custody if the
>child is his, then do DNA tests to see if he's really the father. 
>If all possibles don't care if the child is put for adoption, then
>there's no problem.

But what if she truly doesn't know -- and can't even guess?  What 
if she was raped and doesn't know who raped her?  What if she only
knows his firstname (and it's something common like "john")?

Also, what if she gives a *long* list?  Who is responsible for 
diggin up all these men and contacting them?  Who pays for it?

-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Impressive amounts of material can be accreted in this manner.
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.dads-rights
From: pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek)
Subject: Re: Can Michal Put Her Money Where Her Mouth Is?
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 02:26:30 GMT

beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

>>By the way, does "hippocracy" mean government by the hippopotami?  Is
>>there a hidden message here? :-)

>I was referring to hippocratic principles.

>Rule by horses seems more appropriate to the 19th century midwest --
>although given the Elephant and Donkey parties' treatment of principles
>like sexual equality, perhaps a Horse will make a suitable alternative.

"Hippo-" means "horse", and "-cracy" is commonly used as a suffix for
various forms of leadership.  Does "hippocracy" by any chance translate
as "high horse"?  I are an Engineer; I never learned any of this humanities
stuff.


Paul Ciszek                      When we are planning for posterity, we
                                 ought to remember that virtue is not
pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu            hereditary.     --Thomas Paine
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Privacy -- and responsibility
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 04:14:24 GMT

In article <1jsta5INNktb@gap.caltech.edu> 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.
 
Not from what I have heard. If man can afford if, she can get $15K/month,
for child support, on top of alimony. In CA, the state monitors the guys
salary, and decides what her fair share is. I will have to ask Arlen if he
finds out when he opens the paycheck envelope.

Simply put, by my observations of reality, your claim is wrong.

 
>                                                --  Michal
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Impressive amounts of material can be accreted in this manner.


Rich

payner@netcom.com
From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Male Men Bashers
Date: 23 Jan 93 09:20:39 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

In article <16B5EA2EA.ALI00BAW@UNCCVM.UNCC.EDU> ALI00BAW@UNCCVM.UNCC.EDU writes:

>I remember in High School and College guys like me, who were taught to treat
>young ladies as though they were Countesses at least, couldn't get the time
>of day, while the football players whose thumbs were scarcely opposable had
>HAREMS.  I'm 33 now and my self-confidence around women is still at a very
>low ebb because of painful experiences of that sort; I'm not the only one, I
>know.

Son, let me explain it to you in real simple terms.  Dames ain't Countesses,
and they know it.  Women, particularly young women, are long on insecurity
and lack of self confidence.  They respond to self-confidence like a flower
to the Sun.  [Too much Sun and they wilt.]  Mr. Bozo is doing what Mr. Wimp
isn't -- he's delivering the goods, damaged though they may be.  When Mr.
Wimp flops his bod at the feet of Ms. Sweet Young Thing and murmurs that
he desperately craves the boon of worshiping her, he is *Doing The Wrong
Thing*.  This she doesn't need or want.  She wants, in no particular order,
a hero, fun, excitement, somebody to share with, a prospective husband,
a good lay, or an object for her fixations.  Being worshipped, particularly
by pimply nerds, is nowhere on her list.
-- 
Richard Harter: SMDS Inc.  Net address: rh@smds.com Phone: 508-369-7398 
US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742.    Fax: 508-369-8272
In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.
Xref: sparky soc.men:23363 soc.women:23125
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: and you'd best eat it cold.
Date: 27 Jan 93 00:23:37 GMT
Followup-To: *you* figure it out, sweetheart
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <147772@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> lisa@zeppelin.llnl.gov (Lisa Corsetti) writes:
>How does it feel?

	Really great!!  In fact, it feels so good that I think that all
men should be really, really oppressed and humiliated for like 2000 years,
and then we can switch around again so **everybody** gets to be treated
like shit.

	It's a good thing that all you people are so into revenge or we
might someday stumble into true equality.





					

Xref: sparky soc.men:23090 alt.abortion.inequity:6656 alt.dads-rights:3453