HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Do Women Really Want Higher-Earning Men as Partners?
Date: 20 Jul 92 18:11:36 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system

sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:

> In article <9ZmyNB7w164w@cellar.org> revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano)
> >sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
> >
> >> Colleges are filled with bright, considerate, nerdy guys who can't get dat
> >> while jocks who have meat for brains find women falling all over them.
> >> 
> >> Then after being treated like dirt by the 'dominant males' they crave, the
> >> women complain to each other about how badly men treat them.
> >> -- 
> >        Oh, Jesus Christ! TALK about resentment! Robert, have you ever READ 
> >your own posts? If I read one more "Women are so disgusting because they 
> >always go for the workout meatheads, and they treat me like dirt" post, I'm 
> >going to REpost this stuff over on sci.skeptic just to embarass your sorry 
> >white ass.
> >
> 
> Listen, Rev. P.C., if I were displaying Nietzschean "ressentiment" (i.e.,
> the spiteful desire among the losers in life to get revenge on those
> on those who have succeeded), I would be seeking to humiliate, torment,
> and ultimately destroy those who (for want of a better term) we'll call
> "Real Men." Please show *where* I have advocated such a thing. (Hint:
> you won't, because you can't. If anything, I have tended to *defend* them
> from the ceaseless attacks emanating from feminist _ressentiment_).
> 
        You mean to say that referring to muscular men as "having meat for 
brains" doesn't constitute an attempt at humiliation? (And since when does 
resentment require actual efforts to 'destroy' what one resents? Seems to me 
that one can resent something without causing harm to it.)
> Now, let's talk about the *ressentiment* that you Socialists hold against
> those who have disciplined themselves enough to succeed. 
>   "The so-called 'class struggle' is nothing but the ongoing assault
>    of resentment against achievement ... the ceaseless attack of
>    angry failure against visible success."
>                                - in Resentment Against Achievement
> 
> A thousand pardons for being a not-yet-Dead-White-Male.
> 
        Now, could you please explain where you made this assumption that I'm 
a Socialist? Or are you resorting to the same Red-baiting tactics that 
embarassed you on sci.skeptic? (Or are people who have the temerity to 
disagree with you automatically resentment-filled Socialists?)

        The quote from your own book speaks volumes, all right.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian "Rev. P-K" Siano                                  revpk@cellar.org
"Best Reason Not to Vote for Perot-- If he wins, it might encourage Bill 
Gates to run." 
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity
From: nancyo@fraser.sfu.ca (Nancy Patricia O'Connor)
Subject: Re: Right to not support
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 19:18:33 GMT

root@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick   ) writes:

>rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon) writes:

>> In <nancyo.712373787@sfu.ca> nancyo@fraser.sfu.ca (Nancy Patricia O'Connor) w
>> >We live in a society where DNA testing should eliminate this
>> >uncertain paternity, and it would thus be (if he is able)
>> >in the father's best interest to support his child.
>> 
>> In the FATHER'S best interest?  What in the world prompts you to make such
>> a generalization?  If the father does not want to have any contact with the
>> child, then it seems that it would be in anything BUT his best interest to
>> support it.
>> 

>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. 

I have heard estimates of the percentage of men who are unknowingly
raising other men's children--as high as 15%...

I thought I had clarified what I meant by "father's best interest",
but my post doesn't seem to have made it here.

I was, of course, talking in terms of fitness (from an evolutionary
point of view), and not making any moral judgments.
However, I would like to revise that.  It might not be a man's
best strategy to stick around and help the woman out (hence all
the men who can't be found to pay child support).  It is also,
however, not in the best interest of the community to look after
other people's children (again, from an evol. point of view).

However, from a cultural viewpoint, which is, of course, very
important, it pays for the community to help out in ensuring that
all children are given adequate care. 
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.censorship,alt.politics.correct
From: aviksroy@athena.mit.edu (Avik S. Roy)
Subject: Re: P.C. Professors Try to Censor Anti-Feminist Book
Keywords: Paglia's "Sexual Personae"
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 23:14:49 GMT

bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:

) This is a rough approximation from a quick skim:
)
) Good news:  Men and woman are about equal in intelligence, math,
) aggressiveness, etc.
)
) Bad news:  Women aren't morally superior than men, or 'more nurturing'.
)
) I'm not sure Travis actually used the good news/bad news terminiology,
) though.

Thanks for the summary.

Although this sounds appealing, virtually all physiological studies indicate
there are higher nurturing instincts in women, and higher aggressive instincts in
men.  While there currently exists no proof or disproof of comparative math
skills and intelligence in men and women, it's only a matter of time before we
understand cognitive processes at the molecular level (e.g., the recent discovery
of a "learning gene" in mice, which directly and significantly affects spatial
learning capacity). and it's quite probable that we may find general trends on
certain cognitive processes in the same way that we do for height, muscle
development, etc.  Which gender such trends will favor is uncertain.

When will feminists, environmentalists, etc. learn that if they want invent or
revise the truth, they should stick to literature, where they've somehow been
able to get away with it?

Avik
Xref: sparky soc.men:13836 soc.women:14264 alt.censorship:6399 alt.politics.correct:4855
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.censorship,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: P.C. Professors Try to Censor Anti-Feminist Book
Summary: This is a rhetoric question.
Date: 29 Jul 92 04:36:13 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: The Scorpions Nest

In article <1992Jul28.231449.23699@athena.mit.edu> 
aviksroy@athena.mit.edu (Avik S. Roy) writes:

>Although this sounds appealing, virtually all physiological studies 
>indicate there are higher nurturing instincts in women, and higher 
>aggressive instincts in men.  

Was any of these "physiological studies" done on men and women 
who grew up in a non-sexist society?
From: me@isnext4.msu.edu (My Account)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Yet another clueless liberal (Was Re: Yet Another AA Argument)
Date: 21 Jul 92 17:54:33 GMT
Organization: Michigan State University

In article <711341362@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)  
writes:
> In article <1992Jul17.004719.2650@colorado.edu> 
> fedrick@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Kelvin W. Fedrick) writes:
> 
> > In principle this is a great idea. Now lets deal with reality. In how
> > many cases can you conclusively say Mr X was discriminated against by
> > virtue of Company Y's racist hiring policy? Bush has made this even
> > more difficult to do. Do you look at all minorities who applied during
> > some period of time? What if some of them simply weren't qualified?
> 
> I offered the following solution several times:
> 
> Between all candidates with similar qualifications, choose the
> one with the current lowest salary.  In this way people who are
> discriminated against will have an advantage, regardless of
> the reason why they are discriminated against.
> 
> Try to *think* why no liberal has ever offered this solution.
[elided]
> Hillel                                        gazit@cs.duke.edu
> 
> "Were we the ones who called the shots, there would
> be no institutional discrimination against us."  --  Clay Bond

Because liberals (my definition of course) are content to stick a tiny band-aid  
on a gaping wound.  They don't actually want solutions.  Since George Bush has  
informed us that no one is allowed to actually be a liberal, obviously anyone  
who addresses root cause or mentions economic class must be a Communist.  This  
is particularly ironic since liberals are only watered-down right-wingers in  
the first place.

=========SunCat++++     | kamchar@ibm.cl.msu.edu
"When I gave food to the poor, they called me a saint. When I asked
why the poor were hungry, they called me a communist"
--Dom Helder Camara Brazilian Bishop Nobel Peace Prize nominee
Xref: sparky soc.men:13518 soc.women:13890 alt.censorship:6109 alt.politics.correct:4812
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.censorship,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: P.C. Professors Try to Censor Anti-Feminist Book
Keywords: Paglia's "Sexual Personae"
Date: 22 Jul 92 01:34:50 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: LLNL

In article <1992Jul22.003433.29009@athena.mit.edu> aviksroy@athena.mit.edu (Avik S. Roy) writes:
>lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
:
:) You might find it fun to read what Carol Tavris has had to say
:) about alleged biological sex differences. She successfully debunks a
:) lot of myths about supposed gender differences, IMO. And if she fails,
:) I would like to know in gory detail how she goes wrong. Unsupported
:) accusations of Political Correctness will be held to demonstrate the
:) weakness of the criticism.
:
:Who is Carol Tavris?  Are we talking about a book, or articles?
:The nice thing about discussing whether or not gender differences are "supposed"
:is that they are grounded in scientific study and can't be deconstructed out of
:political whim.  Can you share with us some of Carol Tavris' assertions on gender
:differences?

	You can find it all in _The Mismeasure of Woman_, which she
recently published.

/Loren
From: simpson@darkstar.ktu.EDU
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: soc.feminism
Date: 31 Jul 92 21:42:00 GMT

<Frankly, the only thing that bothers me about the arrangement is the fact
<that the moderators post freely on the newsgroup they supposedly moderate.

The moderators can not be considered impartial if they are participating in
the debate.  The title "moderator" is actually an inappropriate one.  They
may be getting to decide who gets to post what, but they are hardly true
moderators.

Also in another post:

<Should moderators reject articles due to personal bias?
<Or should a moderator at least attempt some semblance of impartiality?

Assuming that they recognize a "personal bias" they should step aside and
let someone else approve/reject the article.  But that would assume that
they care to do so.  I get the feeling that "control" of the ideas in the
group are closer to the real agenda.

Who says you have to be male to be a sexist pig? ;-)
From: stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Date: 29 Jul 92 18:27:36 GMT
Distribution: na

In article <exukjb.26.712417719@exu.ericsson.se> exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken  
bell) writes:

+ If I am correct in holding that children do have this right, then the
+ biological parent(s) has a correlative duty not to *be* UNINVOLVED.

Tell that to the judge that gives primary custody to the mother and
potentially murderous support payments to the father. The judge that
will make the father's life miserable should he even think about missing
a payment, but won't lift a finger to enforce visitation rights.

Involved. Sure. Nothing like an uphill battle.

K'Char
Xref: sparky soc.men:13481 soc.women:13855
From: stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Semantics was: Re: topless?
Date: 28 Jul 92 22:15:03 GMT
Distribution: na

In article <1992Jul28.192956.28943@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> me@isnext9.msu.edu (My  
Account) writes:
+ In article <9962@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)  
+ writes:

+ > Au contraire, mon ami. "Feminism" would argue that for a man to be
+ > insulting, he would be "oppressing", and hence the term "girl" would
+ > always be demeaning.

+ Feminism?
+ Guess what.  You and I attach different meanings to the same words.   
+ Happens all the time on USENET.  Infact it happens so often that I don't  
+ like to assume I know what someone's getting at unless the terms are  
+ defined.  I say that the fascists who claim to be feminists are not really  
+ feminists.  

Guess what? Those "fascists" of yours are the *movers* and *shakers* in
feminism these days. The rest of the feminists who are not had better
get shaking and moving or be preempted out of their own movement.

K'Char
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,alt.folklore.urban,misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Ed Nilges and Snuff Films?
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 00:48:47 GMT

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."  

As for Dahmer: he's got the right one, baby. Uh huh.


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,     |"Of the many definitions of poetry, the   
mnemonic@eff.org | simplest is still the best: 'memorable speech.'" 
(617) 864-0665   | 
EFF, Cambridge   |                     --W.H. Auden 
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,alt.folklore.urban,misc.legal
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Ed Nilges and Snuff Films?
Reply-To: hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: DESY ZEUS Central Data Acquisition
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:36:16 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.071137.18941@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com>,
billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:

|>datri@convex.com (Anthony A. Datri) writes:
|>: >You've been reading too much MacKinnon.  No such thing as snuff films.
|>: >At least, none have ever been documented.
|>: 
|>: It may be a stretch, but I recently saw a program on a local public station
|>: that included explicit footage from the Holocaust.
|>
|>Yes, there is no relationship. Please read the FAQ. The subject has been
|>thrashed many times. We are still waiting for more info from our most hopeful
|>lead in England - HRS4. Unfortunately, he has been silent on the subject for
|>months now.

Thats because HRS4 had the staring role in `Dinning at Dahmers'


Phill Hallam-Baker
From: ABBST@vms.cis.pitt.edu
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: All feminists are lesbian man-haters
Date: 22 Jul 92 00:12:00 GMT

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"?

Al
From: mikep@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Mike Powell)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Re: Garvin Hallucina (3)
Date: 31 Jul 92 02:59:25 GMT
Organization: HP Santa Rosa Site (NMD MTA MWTD)


	
	Actually.....  the idea of giving a fighting force a 'gender'
	is a bit strange.... while one might say that the soldiers
	in an army were all men.... it might be improper thinking to say
	that an army is male....  An army is basically a fighting
	mechanism (with some of it's parts being human).  The mechanism
	follows orders.  The gender of the parts is not all important.

	The gender of the person who owns/controls the mechanism is
	another matter.

	"Lean, mean, fighting _machine_"

	Men are conditioned/forced/left to deal with all things violent...
	in much the same way as women are left to change the diapers....
	
	You will note that it is not fully the 'fault' of women that
	they are largely responsible for diaper changing...

	Also it is true that is is not fully the 'fault' of men that
	they are largely responsible to face violence.
	There are a great many social agreements/understandings between
	men and women.... and the duties they are expected to perform.
	These duties change over time.


	-Mike- (the guy who would rather change diapers :-)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 13:48:39 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.233551.11916@cfctech.cfc.com> kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>From: kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy)
>Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
>Date: 28 Jul 92 23:35:51 GMT

>In article <exukjb.21.712334351@exu.ericsson.se> exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
>>
>>I agree with Paul on this one, except that he overlooks the fact that the 
>>law must treat minors, in particular small children, as not independent 
>>rational agents, capable of looking out for themselves.  They are dependent, 
>>and as such have a right to depend on their parents, for this is just an 
>>extension of the right to life. 

>Parents, plural? Why? Why do they have the right to support from an 
>unwilling, essentially UNINVOLVED biological parent? That smacks to me of
>the "deep pockets" mentality...

>>The issue has nothing whatever to do with 
>>interferring with people's sex lives. 

>Pardon my potential lack of imagination, but when Paul Vixie says "keep your
>zipper up", I just _assume_ he's talking about my sex life... 

>                                                                - Kevin
If I am correct in holding that children do have this right, then the
biological parent(s) has a correlative duty not to *be* UNINVOLVED. Or does 
being uninvolved work to nullify the initial obligation? How does mere
unwillingness to fulfill an obligation initiated by one's voluntary choice 
serve to nullify it? If I promise to pay a dept I owe you, then I should 
pay you the dept, unless conditions obtain that justify nullifying my 
promise (You die today while I'm on way to your house to pay you, for 
instance). But I take it mere unwillingness to go through with your promise, 
simply as such, is not grounds enough to nullify the original obligation. 
But, perhaps I don't understand your point about the uninvolved parent.

However, one caveat to this. I do see something very like your 'deep pocket' 
mentality at work when a biological father is forced to pay child support in 
the case where the child is now being cared for by the mother and a new 
father, where there is now a new father who can provide. It seems to me that 
in these circumstances, if the child's father no longer wants to support 
those children, and the children are being taken care of by new parents, the 
real father should not to be forced to pay.  If that was the point your 
last post, then I sympathize.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Bell                                    Welcome to Mind Wars
Ericsson Network Systems, Inc                   You can force any entertainment
P.O. Box 833875                                 on a people except the consistent
Richardson, TX 75083-3875                       pursuit of a topic.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: dswartz@redondo.sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Date: 30 Jul 92 22:57:04 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Stratus Computer, Software Engineering

In article <1992Jul30.165050.21429@news.nd.edu> slarsen@titian.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:
>In article <hppmq9_@lynx.unm.edu> bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:

[deleted]

>I think that if we want to look at equalizing the father's legal 
>role with regard to his children, then we should take a long, 
>hard look at the adoption laws and whether or not BOTH parents 
>have an equal right to voluntarily relinquish parental rights 
>by using the adoption option.  And, in the alternative, whether 
>BOTH parents have the right to automatic custody when the other 
>would place a child for adoption. 

So you do think there is an inequity here then?  If so, there are a
lot of PC types who'd disagree with you.  Their attitude is that if
a man doesn't want to face the prospect of 18 years of child support,
then he'd best keep his pants zipped; whereas if a woman becomes
pregnant against her desire, she has every right to an abortion,
since she should control her own body.  Now I recognize that there
is a biological inequality, since men don't risk adverse physical
consequences from pregnancy, but I don't think that is sufficient
to justify their position.  The combination which a number of men
find unfair is where the woman wants the child and the man doesn't;
so clearly she is prepared to take those risks anyway in that situation.
Also, I'm not quite clear on your point about relinquishing one's
parental rights vis-a-vis men who don't want a child.  Are you saying
that the man should be able to relinquish his parental rights to the
woman?

[deleted]

>Sue Larsen
>slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu


-- 

Dan S.
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: sexism in health spas
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 15:58:08 GMT
Keywords: weights

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

)Anyway, this is the first time I've been denied the use of exercise equipment
)because of my sex.  
)
)Can anyone beat this story?  I need to be cheered up.
)
)Karen Biesel

Well, a guy at the Y was just posting about how he was denied equal access to
the pool, but at least he had *some* access - they just had uneven hours for
women and men  (some women only hours, no men only hours).

Dunno how cheery that is....

The thing I might find cheery is that I think you've got a pretty good chance
of winning a case if you press it against the spa, though I'm not sure what
the resources involved might be.
Xref: sparky soc.men:13680 alt.discrimination:3718 soc.women:14057 misc.legal:14760
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.discrimination,soc.women,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Sex Discrimination in the Death Penalty?
From: <REGHC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Thursday, 23 Jul 1992 10:40:46 EDT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

The death penalty should be for anyone that is guilty of a crime such as murder
or rape.  This system we live in would be quick to send a black man for crime
faster than they would send a white man.  That is our messed up system, what
can we do?
From: stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: How much $$ is enough?
Date: 26 Jul 92 01:20:24 GMT
Distribution: na

In article <1992Jul25.212908.8330@unixg.ubc.ca> schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart  
Schultz) writes:
+ J.R. Stoner writes:
+ >Yes, indeed.  Why should anybody in his right mind ever get married.
+ 
+ In the not-too-distant future, maybe to escape the bachelor tax.
+ :-P

Do the French still have a Foreign Legion?

K'Char 
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity