HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 15:31:13 GMT

In article <HARKCOM.92Aug17075630@spinach.pa.yokogawa.co.jp> harkcom@spinach.pa.yokogawa.co.jp (Alton Harkcom) writes:
)In article <1992Aug7.205638.29522@u.washington.edu> jcr@milton.u.washington.edu
)    (Mr. EuStress) writes:

) =}    Al, Give me all your money!
) =}    Don't avoid this responsibility . . .  Give me all your money!
)
)   Since when is it my responsibility to give my money to some idiot
)that I didn't spawn?

It happens all the time!  Say your wife gets pregnant by another man, or
you support a woman you had sex with at about the right time, and in either
case it turns out the child isn't yours (via testing).  You can indeed be
held responsible to give money to a child you didn't spawn.
Xref: sparky soc.men:15233 soc.women:15510 alt.censorship:7010
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Equal Male Rights
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 23:29:26 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.011741.28510@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
)
)Ummm, regular tort or contract principles support the current system.
)Perhaps you're thinking of something else.
)
)Followups directed out of misc.legal.

I dunno about that - since one of the main points of the argument so far
has been the impossibility of people making agreements about custody or
support in advance,  arguing that contract and tort principles support the
current system seems sort of weird to me.

Not to mention the difference between the 'debtors prision' approach to
child support debts (through "contempt of court") and the more relaxed
approach to other debts in the US, and differences in handling of bankruptcy,
too.  [Most of my info on bankruptcy & support comes from  the book "Father's
Rights", where it is mentioned that it is not a practical remedy in most
circumstances.  And I think it should be a remedy for *any* case where a
judge had ordered unrealistic payments.  There's no justification for trying
to squeeze blood from a stone, IMO.]

(I've added misc.legal back in, BTW - take it out if you *really* don't
think it belongs there, I sort of think it does)

Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.dads-rights
From: stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Some Politically Incorrect questions
Date: 15 Aug 92 19:32:16 GMT
Distribution: na

Dave Eisen writes

+ Or Loren, do you know lots of women who would be happy to
+ marry an unemployed man with few marketable job skills? Do 
+ you know lots of women who are looking for a man they can 
+ support for the rest of their lives?

Say, maybe he can introduce me to a couple of 'em. I've always wanted
to be supported in a fashion to which I could learn to be comfortable
with.

K'Char
Xref: sparky soc.men:14970 alt.dads-rights:2001
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: It isn't slavery
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 16:29:47 GMT
Followup-To: poster

In article <1992Aug17.194234.10222@telebit.com> brunner@telebit.com (Eric Brunner) writes:
)In article <1992Aug17.155337.5552@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
)>
)>Hmm.  Well, if you don't want soc.* input, why are you xposting here?
)>
)
)This shouldn't be so terribly hard to figure out Bronis. Every so often
)some creative person cross-posts _into_ a.c-s with rather noisy effect.
)It would be _greatly_ appreciated by a.c-s regulars if there were less
)of this generosity. Don't you think that a plea for fewer kneejerk follow
)up cross-posts should be cross-posted? 
)
)Note the follow-up.

Sorry - we don't get alt.flame here.
(note the new followup line)

I don't think your attempt at a 'plea for less followups' was very well done.
Such things can be done successfully, but your implementation of it was
(IMO) very poor and flamy.  It was really rather inappropriate and
inconsiderate of you to go about insulting the people you wanted to help you
(by not xposting) for one thing.  Of course, if you're looking for a
flamewar, as the followup to alt.flame suggests, it makes a certain amount
of sense.

I think your idea of a killfile (in a pervious post) was a good one & in the
usenet tradition.

If (instead of a flame) you want to stick your head in the sand in a.cs
(which we don't get here either) and read only posters you like/agree/have
the 'correct' views, that's find with me too.
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: swells@triton.unm.edu (Earth-daughter)
Subject: Re: Some Politically Incorrect questions
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 21:58:10 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
Distribution: na

In article <713681415@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:

>1) If marriage is such a bad deal for women, then why are they
>the ones who usually push in that direction?
>
statistics, dammit!  statistics!  marriage is not always a "bad
deal"  or a good one, for men or women.  it is a deal.  it is
what you make of it.

what if i answered, "because if they didn't, no women would ever
get married, 'cos all men want to do is fuck every woman that is
willing and never make a real commitment."

but that's just as stupid a generalization as the question, isn't
it?  and just as offensive.  why don't we get some real discussion
going, and avoid spewing out unsupported generalizations which
are basically the result of one's upbringing and not facts?
try to understand what's really going on, instead of making 
pronouncements which are nothing more than what mommy and
daddy taught you.  USE YOUR HEAD!  don't fit the facts to
your hypotheses.

<
>2) If divorce is such a bad deal for women, they why are they the
>   ones usually push in that direction?

this is the companion, misandrist answer to a misogynist question:  
"because only women have the real balls in a relationship and know 
when to get out of a dead end."  again, see above.

>
>3) What is a better deal for a woman, to get married and 
>   divorced or to stay single?

a better deal for a woman is to be happy; to have people
treat her with respect and not disdain, hatred, fear,
jealousy, or bitterness.  that can encompass any one
of those options, plus getting married and staying married.
(that's mine)

shannon the mouthy pushy ranting broad, dammit!

"at least you correctly identified the wasted subspecies you are"
       -Len, the mouthy pushy ranting whining male broad who
             couldn't supply a snappy comeback if he were given
             a slingshot.

Xref: sparky soc.men:14909 soc.women:15183
From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Failure to read in a boring thread
Date: 13 Aug 92 01:35:01 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Distribution: na
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

In article <_y4mhgf.vlad@netcom.com> vlad@netcom.com (Vladimir Kuznetsov) writes:
>In article <3g3m!5#@lynx.unm.edu> bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:

>>But, Clayton, sweetie, honey, baby, pussy-cat, AIDS is transmitted
>>primarily through *heterosexual* contact.  75% of the cases of HIV
>>transmission, world-wide, have been the result of heterosexual
>>intercourse.

>	This is nothing more but a piece of crap. Here in San Francisco
>AIDS is a main concern for people of "alternative sexual orientation".
>Heterosexual are at a very low risk.

Did I mention that this thread is boring?  

Notice how "75% of the cases of HIV transmission, world-wide" is
responded to by "Here is San Francisco".

All together now, children, can we say non sequitor?

Incidentally, the 75% is about right.  AIDS is devasting sections of
Africa.  Of course, for some folks, being black is three steps below
being gay, so blacks don't count.  A majority of the people in
the world who have AIDS are women, but most of them are black, so I
don't reckon they count either.  At least for some folks.

Tomorrow's assignment, children, is to learn two new words,
bigoted and provincial.  If you don't have a dictionary, just
read usenet -- you'll find plenty of examples.
-- 
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.
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.censorship,sci.skeptic
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Robert Sheaffer's Loyalty Test
Organization: LLNL
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 00:56:37 GMT

In article <Rw7LPB1w164w@cellar.org> revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano) writes:

>     I just received the following Loyalty test in Email-- from Robert
>Sheaffer. In case anyone was under the delusion that McCarthyism was
>Dead, I guess you'll benefit from my sharing it around.

	[A lot of stuff implying that leftists are all Soviet dupes...]

	Robert Sheaffer has been making even _me_ lose patience with
him. He is starting to remind me of a certain Clayton Cramer, who
posts at length in talk.politics.misc and elsewhere about the supposed
depravity of homosexual people. In particular, he never tires of
harping on why the homosexual community has not ostracized the North
American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), which seemingly advocates
pedophilia. His repeated insinuation that homosexuals are all
pedophiles or else see nothing wrong with pedophilia has led some
people to call him the Claytoon and Klayton KKKramer. Most recently,
he has harped on why some NAMBLA supporters marched in the recent SF
Gay Pride Day parade, while some Perot supporters were not allowed to.
I saw the whole parade, and the NAMBLA contingent was only a small
part of it; it was booed by people along the route. But that was the
_only_ interest that the parade held for the Claytoon.

	Melinda Shore posted a satire there recently calling for the
Claytoon's fellow Optilink employees to ostracize him or be known as
seeing nothing wrong with crude bigotry, if not actual supporters of
it.

>     But I'll give Sheaffer my answer, publicly:

>     "The very idea of demanding that I answer a test of your own
>devising to 'prove' my reason and my loyalty is an openly fascist
>conceit. It is precisely the sort of intimidation that the McCarthies,
>the Hitlers, the J. Edgar Hoovers and the Stalins of the world thrive
>on. One might just as well ask blacks to 'prove' their intelligence
>before voting. Or demand that workers properly denounce Communism
>before they're hired. Or have prospective neighbors pass an ideology
>test before allowing them to move into one's neighborhood. Or force
>women to pass a test for maternal fitness before allowing them to have
>children. Or have the school's teachers prove that they're not Secular
>Humanists or homosexuals. Or-- well, the list goes on and on, of
>course.

	Or even have homosexuals denounce NAMBLA.
From: dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Ann Landers Sexual Harassment article
Date: 12 Aug 92 15:37:29 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <7560109@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM>, erik@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Erik Lode) writes:
> 
> 	_The_Denver_Post				May 23, 1992
> 
> 
> 			Sex-harassment laws for men, too
> 
>   DEAR ANN LANDERS:  In a recent column, you asserted that the laws on
> sexual harassment protect men as well as women.  As someone who has worked
> with many male victims of sexual harassment, I assure you that this is not
> true.
> 
>   Because the law was written from the female perspective, sexual
> harassment suffered by males is often passed over, and male victims have
> nowhere to turn.  For example:  I gave a sexual harassment workshop at one
> place of employment and while there observed the blatant sexual harassment
> of members of the male staff.  They didn't like it but there was nothing
> they could do because the woman harassing them had the power.
> 
>   Another example took place at a local college and involved a number of
> woman students who were taking a shortcut to their class by brazenly
> walking through the men's locker room.  The only concern of a female
> school administrator was that the women were not noticeably upset at
> "having" to look at naked men.  A complaint by a male student brought the
> following response from the school administration:  1) Men were urged to
> try not to be naked in their own locker room, and 2) women were urged to
> try not to look at the men when they took their shortcut.
> 
>   And you say the laws protect men as well as women?  Do you really
> believe if men were short-cutting through the women's locker room, the
> administration would have taken the same action?  -- Frederic Hayward,
> executive director, Men's Rights Inc., Sacramento, Calif.
> 
> 
>   Dear Mr. Hayward:  These laws CAN protect men, but only if men are
> willing to follow through in court.

Don't you just love it?  Imagine a man saying "Rape laws CAN protect women,
but only if women are willing to follow through in court".  Sigh.

-- 

Dan S.
From: stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: REQUEST:  TOP 20 WAYS TO ASK A FRESHMAN GIRL OUT
Date: 18 Aug 92 21:45:53 GMT
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: Murasami Labs

Mike Powell wrote:


> 	"I love you.  Please take my wallet."

> 	--- runner-up from the search for the "seven most powerful words..." 

I thought that was the FCC's seven deadly words list?

K'Char
Xref: sparky soc.men:15245 soc.women:15516 alt.child-support:2811 alt.dads-rights:2033
From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Paul Vixie
Date: 20 Aug 92 07:20:05 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

In article <1992Aug19.154427.25994@meaddata.com> king@meaddata.com (Mike King) writes:
>In article <1992Aug5.010205.20391@u.washington.edu>, jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress) writes:
>|> 
>|>    Paul, you will never know me.
>|>    I have a vasectomy and I don't have sex.
>|>    Your "rules" are slavery -- not responsibility.
>|>    And it harms the kids. 
>
>The voluntary absence of a parent from a childs life has ALREADY
>harmed the child.  By forcing these voluntarily absent parents to
>financially support their children at least assures that the children
>will have enough to eat.
> 

Mike,

The world must look pretty rosy through those glasses, because it is
just not so peachy-keen from the perspective of many others.  And, I
take offense to the language you have used to make your point.
"Voluntarily absent parents"  Hmmm?  Would you say that every mother who
puts her child up for adoption is a "voluntarily absent parent?"  You
should, you know.  Because that is exactly what they are.  But it is
also a rather narrow view.  Oftentimes they are giving up that child to
parents who can provide a better, happier and healthier life.  Since
when did it become a crime?

Also, do we, as a society, force these "voluntarily absent parents,"
otherwise sometimes known as biological parents who sometimes put their
biologicla offspring up for adoption, to pay for their children?  What's
that?  We don't.  Hmmmm.  Why don't we?

But your point, as I understand it, is that fathers, who mistakenly
impregnate a woman with a child that they did not want, should be
forced to pay for that child to emanciapation.  Why does that strike a
strange chord with me?  A mother can opt to become a "voluntarily
absent parent" and get both her and the biological father off the hook,
but a father has no such choice.  That's not equality - it's indentured
servitude for the father when he makes one single mistake.

>|>    You like parenting, so
>|>    you want to make the whole world a parent.
>|>    You don't care about the kids the man or the 
>|>    society.  You only live in your dream world 
>|>    where everyone copies you.
>
>What are you supposed to say to a child you don't want.  Have a nice
>life?
>
>Michael W. King     |  "I'm going to graduate on  |     (513) 865-1395   

What do mothers who put their children up for adoption say to those
little babies?  I doubt they are as callous as you think.

Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM 
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Alt.feminism created
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 22:21:45 GMT

Terry Wood has asked me to let people know that alt.feminism _has_
been created, though it may take the newgroup command a while to
propagate.

Look for it at a site near you, if you're lucky enough to get the alt
distribution, that is.....


Xref: sparky soc.men:15271 soc.women:15549 alt.censorship:7031
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Robert Sheaffer Whines About Exposure
Date: 20 Aug 92 22:31:00 GMT
Organization: NMSU Computer Science

In article <6Z8RPB3w164w@cellar.org> revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano) writes:

	A lot of blather attempting to justify his posting of
	email without permission.

	Funny, some .edu sites will yank net.access for just
	this breach of net.ethics.
From: perez@mgr.hjf.org (Charles Perez)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Date: 17 Aug 92 01:50:42 GMT
Organization: HJF AIDS Research Project, Washington DC

In article <HARKCOM.92Aug17075630@spinach.pa.yokogawa.co.jp> harkcom@spinach.pa.yokogawa.co.jp (Alton Harkcom) writes:
>In article <1992Aug7.205638.29522@u.washington.edu> jcr@milton.u.washington.edu
>    (Mr. EuStress) writes:
>
> =}Alton Harkcom writes
> =}>    Fraud, deceit, coercon, duress, etc... can be figured in.  Of course
> =}> they won't help with the case in point.  In this case the father willingly
> =}> created and now wants to avoid responsibility...
> =}
> =}    Al, Give me all your money!
> =}    Don't avoid this responsibility . . .  Give me all your money!
>
>   Since when is it my responsibility to give my money to some idiot
>that I didn't spawn?

How about supporting your grandchildren? You certainly enabled *them*
to be born, so you should take responsibility for them. After all,
"you made your choice when you dropped your pants."

>
>   Ed, give your child a life!
>Don't avoid this responsibility...  Give your child a life!

Say this to a woman with an unwanted pregnancy. Really. Go ahead.


-- 
==========================================================================
That which is necessary is never evil. If an evil seems necessary, look
to your context; that's where its root lies.  - Charles Perez
==========================================================================
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.censorship,sci.skeptic
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: Brian Siano Posts Private E-Mail (was: Robert Sheaffer's Loyalty T
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<92230.223226SML108@psuvm.psu.edu> <25630@dog.ee.lbl.gov>
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 21:59:51 GMT

<In article <25630@dog.ee.lbl.gov> sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:

<   Sheaffer surely doesn't need *me* to support him, but I will do it anyway.
<   I think that posting his private E-mail was a disgusting ploy.  If anyone
<   ever posted something that I had sent privately without asking my 
<   permission I would be just as ticked off.  

	Then I suggest you be very careful about emailing anyone
	who posts to soc.feminism.

	It's bad enough to have your email posted without permission.
	It's even more annoying not be allowed to post a response.
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
From: charleen@ADS.COM (Charleen Bunjiovianna)
Subject: Re: mandatory service
Organization: The Original Estrogen-Crazed Lust Bunnies
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 18:52:28 GMT

In article <4050@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us> shomer@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us writes:
>
>Men have plenty of 
>privilege; why should we resent one of the few that women have?

Please name three privileges you have by virtue of being born male,
that I don't have because I was born female.

Or did you mean "privilege" as in "coming from a wealthy family"?
I didn't realize that rich and powerful people only had male offspring.
Enlighten me.

Charleen

--
"I hope if dogs ever take over the world, and they choose a king, they don't
just go by size, because I bet there are some Chihuahuas with some good ideas."
From:  (kamchar@ibm.cl.msu.edu (SunCat))
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Bob Black/Abolition of Work
Date: 15 Aug 92 18:04:42 GMT
Organization: The computer in the back row

In article <l8ljhqINNd2p@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM>, danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:
> 
> (A@a.cl.mnsu.edu, whoever he may be) reprints a review:
> 
>     We also, however, suspect that it's rooted in a refusal to
>  admit that your present efforts have made life no better,
>  they only make life seem to go faster. You are coping in your
>  own way, trying to get it over with.
>     As for the rest of us, we'll be much too busy to work.
>     ---
>     Mr. Black, an unemployed lawyer in Albany, N.Y., is the
>  author of "The Abolition of Work and Other Essays".
> 
> 
> Clearly Mr. Black has become bitter from being unemployed so 
> long. I wonder if it's like the spurned lover denying the
> existence of love at all...
> 
> 
> Dano
> 
> 
Hard to say why he might be bitter.  Some jobs are enough to do 
that to someone.  I found Bob Black's definition of work to be 
a bit interpretive.  More food for thought than a roadmap, I'd say.
BTW, Bob Black's _Abolition of Work and other essays_ has a piece in
there called "Feminism as Fascism".  I caught a glimpse at it.  Wish I
could have finished it.  Guess I'll have to send off to Loompanics
 Unlimited.

SunCat
From: ng@MOE.OPTICS.ROCHESTER.EDU (Baldwin Ng)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: REQUEST:  TOP 20 WAYS TO ASK A FRESHMAN GIRL OUT
Date: 20 Aug 92 15:54:35 GMT


In article <1992Aug17.205858.2326@ncar.ucar.edu>, you wrote:

#....stuff deleted...
#for the most part mature WOMEN. This is not just rhetoric. Your whole
#attitude suggests that all you want to do is get laid. This does not
#impress most women......

Sorry Greg.  I am a kinda traditional Chinese from Hong Kong who happen
to be against PRE-MARITAL SEX.  You would have guessed it right, if I
were not a conservatist.
However, you are right that women don't like guys that just want sex.

#Basically they want the intimacy just as much as you do, they just
#don't want to become intimate with a chowderhead. So grow up and
#quit acting like one.

For those of you who "want to get close to women", take Greg's
advice:
        "...grow up and quit acting like one."

Baldwin Ng (ng@moe.optics.rochester.edu)
Xref: sparky soc.men:15119 soc.women:15386
From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: *THAT* Question!
Date: 18 Aug 92 04:10:35 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Distribution: na
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

In article <andrewb.714016807@suite.sw.oz.au> andrewb@suite.sw.oz.au (Andrew Bettison) writes:
>In article <1992Aug10.231542.15887@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> rcrawfor@nyx.cs.du.edu
>(Ron Crawford) writes:

>> Could you have sex with a girl you just met knowing that there is no
>> chance of any real relationship? 

Er, this is one of those post-in-a-buncha-groups-including-soc.women
threads but...

Doesn't any one have sex with women these days?  I might take in a one
night stand with a *woman* but I'm not much into sex with *girls*.
-- 
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.