HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kamchar@ibm.cl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: "Feminism as Fascism"-Bob Black
Keywords: Bob Black Abolition of Work
Date: 8 Sep 92 22:32:18 GMT
Organization: Michigan State University

I just received a copy of Bob Black's _Abolition of Work and other  
essays_.  In particular I think that his essay "Feminism as Fascism" is  
relevant to this group.  Some excerpts.
-------------------------CUT HERE-------------------------

As the title of a childhood classic points out, *Pigs is Pigs*-- and this  
regardless of the shape of their genitals.  Ilse Koch was a Nazi, not a  
"sister."
[...]
..Men (only) we are told in a feminist/Anti-Porn Movement (APM) diatribe  
in Toronto's _Kick It Over_ ,"have created the nature-destroying and  
women-hating culture."  If so then women have contributed absolutely  
nothing to this culture, or there is something more or something else to  
this culture than destroying nature and hating men.
[...]
For their own purposes (some of which are as mundane as sexual rivalry  
with straight men for the women they both desire), self-styled radical  
feminists actually reduce women to nothing but helpless, cringing  
near-vegetables, passive victims of male contempt and coercion.  This  
profoundly insults in a way which the worst patriarchal ideologies--the  
Jewish notion of women as the source of pollution, for instance, or the  
Christian nightmare of woman as temptress and uncontrollable sexual  
nature-force--fell short of.  They defamed women as evil but could hardly  
regarded her as powerless.  The new woman-as-victim stereotype is not only  
directly traceable to nineteenth century Victorian patriarchal attitudes  
reducing (bourgeois) women to inert ornaments, but denying to women the  
creative power inherent in everyone, it places women's demands on a par  
with those advanced for say, baby seals.
[...]
How to thwart femino-fascism?  That's easy:  just take feminists at face  
value and treat them as equals...then hear them howl!  The Empress has no  
clothes...and *that's* what I call obscene.
-------------------------CUT HERE-------------------------
_Abolition of Work and other essays_ by Bob Black
ISBN 0-915179-41-5
Published by
Loompanics Unlimited
PO Box 1197
Port Townsend, WA  98368


=========SunCat++++     | kamchar@ibm.cl.msu.edu
"Society is in conspiracy against the manhood of every one of its members.  
Society is a joint-stock company in which the members agree, for the 
better securing of his bread to each shareholder, to surrender the liberty  
of 
the eater."
--Ralph Waldo Emerson
From: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Birth control failures
Date: 11 Sep 92 03:31:41 GMT
Reply-To: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Organization: Florida State University, but I don't speak for them

In article <trussell.716160367@cwis> trussell@cwis.unomaha.edu (Tim Russell) writes:
>    I know that CR is usually very reputable with regards to testing,
>but I have to wonder if they didn't happen to somehow get hold of a bad
>batch of some sort.

Well, the obvious rejoinder is that it only TAKES one bad batch to make an 
unwanted baby or an immune system ravaged by AIDS.  When I step on the brake
pedal, it is not enough that it work MOST of the time.

>  I was also under the impression that the government
>does some sort of regulation of testing, and in any case I simply refuse
>to believe that more than 10 percent of this brand of condom fail.

I haven't found the notion of "failure" to be particularly useful in assessing
condom performance.  Any condom will "fail" if subjected to enough stress.

What I find much more useful is the notion of half-life, or the time of use
of a condom before it is about 50% likely to break.

-EMP
Xref: sparky soc.men:15991 soc.women:16189 alt.child-support:3051
From: kls4344@ritvax.isc.rit.edu (Person in flux)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.rape,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: EuStress Has Trouble With Words
Date: 3 Sep 92 13:25:26 GMT
Reply-To: kls4344@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology

>In article <1992Aug31.214526.28552@u.washington.edu> 
hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress) writes:

>>   Sex is good -- unless it's forced.
>>   Money for the home is good -- unless it's forced.
>>   I am outrage that you advocate force (rape) as
>>   a valid way of accruing child support when
>>   their are so many better ways to support
>>   the child.

Mr. EuStress, who will support your child if you won't?  I understand your
outrage at being taxed (you must be one of those "taxation is theft" believers)
or ordered to pay child support, but you haven't shown me any alternative for
supporting your unwanted child.  Please list for us those "so many better ways
to support the child" that you mention so frequently.

Katie
From: stafford@msus1.msus.edu
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Do Men Have Reproductive Rights?
Date: 7 Sep 92 18:09:48 -0600
Organization: Minnesota State University System


	Given the heinous laws already in place, one is due in which
	a woman who can be proven to have had an abortion for reasons
	of convenience at any time in her adult life, forever looses
	rights to child support in future cases when the father is not
	her husband.

	The point is that the woman has demonstrated her willingness
	to absolute control over new life and assumes the full 
	responsibility of having a child. 

	This, of course, defines the 'default' ruling and appeals
	are as considered as those men have in cases where they are
	being pushed to pay support for a child they were tricked
	into conceiving.

Newsgroups: soc.men
From: colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten)
Subject: Re: Men having babies
Summary: Some thoughts
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 20:09:16 GMT

In article <qmosqB6w165w@cybernet.cse.fau.edu>, arcane@cybernet.cse.fau.edu (Kendrick Davis) writes:
> 
> 
>  It was put to our Gay and Lesbian Youth Group this question:
>  
>  
>   "What would the world be like if men could become pregnant? "
> 
> 
>     We'd like to hear your thoughts on it!!! (grin)
> 
> 
>       Thanks,
> 
>                            -< ARCANE >-

Women would be drafted.

Women would pay child support.


marc colten

Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
From: hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress)
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 23:35:52 GMT

Susan Larsen wrote:
     "There are practical reasons for a father to 
     have knowledge of his children,  too.  
     These children could make claims against the 
     father's estate, for example."

Does Sue think Dads should be made to be money slaves?
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (Rini Clarkberg)
Subject: Re: Dworkin...
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 21:50:30 GMT

gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:

>>;Censorship and bookburning is obviously going to hurt the gender NOT in
>>;power more than it will hurt the one that IS.
>
>While it *sounds* true, I'm not sure it is.

I'm not sure it is either, but...

>Think about two historical examples, and please give yes/no answers.
>
>1) Did the draft hurt women more than it hurt men?
>
>2) Did the Prohibition hurt women more than it hurt men?

How in the heck is either of these an example of censorship and 
bookburning?

rini
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: K-Mark Hostages
Organization: Penn State Computer Science
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 14:33:45 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.211522.5711@adobe.com> kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall) writes:
>In article <1992Sep10.112430.1@mdcbbs.com> rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:
>>In article <1992Sep9.230821.20178@u.washington.edu>, hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress) writes:
>>> I wrote:
>>>    "A man distragught over losing his
>>>    wife and kids to a divorce is charged
>>>    with 25 counts of hostage taking."
>>> 
>>> Daniel H. replied:
>>>    "Someone this unstable shouldn't be trusted with kids."
>>> 
>>> Think about it. HE LOST HIS KIDS.
>>> HE LOST HIS RIGHT TO NOT WORK.
>>> ALL "HIS" FUTURE MONEY GOES TO HIS EX.
>>> 
>>> The news just dismisses him as mad.
>>> The news does not explain that society
>>> caused his problems.
>>-- 
>>
>>  Now, I don't condone criminal acts. but I have to agree with the second
>>poster. 
>>
>>  Men were raised with the following promise. All we had to do was educate
>>ourselves, build a career, and we could expect a long life sharing with
>>our families.

[...]
>>  This society has broken faith with every man who has worked within the
>>system, fueled industry with his sweat, and fed wars with his blood.
>>The promise of a good life shared with a family has been taken from him
>>through political reression, and he finds himself criminalized as a class;
>>trying to work within a court system and a media environment which assumes that
>>he, because he is male, punishment is acceptible because he simply MUST 
>>be guilty of something.

>Actually, I hope all you fathers out there are nowadays allowing your sons
>to cry and show emotion.  


I certainly allow my son to cry and show emotion, and will continue
to do so, just as my father taught me (in addition to showing me men
could cook, shop, clean house, and take care of the kids).

I just hope that when my son is my age, he won't have to cry
over the loss of his children to a sexist system.

And I hope he won't be forced to be a lonely wallet by sexist 
old-boy judges or fascist feminists, when in fact he becomes a caring, 
responsible, open man, as I believe his father and his grandfathers 
before him were.  


>I interpret this violence as being created by men
>who have no way of dealing with these overwhelming emotions other than to
>blame and act out against any one they can find.  

But what does a man do when he has a fully developed set of emotions
and is attacked by an antagonistic ex-wife with the support of the system?
When he openly has emotions and can't see his children, for outrageously
unjust reasons?  

The ability to cry or show emotion does +nothing+ for a man 
in the current system -- in fact, it would probably be taken
in court as evidence of lesser parenting ability ("unstable man!").

Crime is wrong; but outrageous reaction to outrageous treatment 
is not surprising.  Emotional +women+ do kidnap children after 
they lose custody battles (and also before).

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.feminism
From: sklautky@vaxa.weeg.uiowa.edu (Stephen Klautky)
Subject: Re: Feminists ignore Cosmetics?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 09:36:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep04.163112.3257@ssc.wa.com>, bel@ssc.wa.com (Belinda Frazier) writes...
>sklautky@vaxa.weeg.uiowa.edu (Stephen Klautky) writes:
>: In article <BtywGK.M6J@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
>: So, I have a question for you feminist or feminist-leaning
>: women.  Are you bothered that a man appreciates the look of a
>: woman in makeup better than without makeup?
> 
>No.
>	What else do you want to know?	

Help me understand the women who are bothered.

-=] Steve [=-
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Birth control failures
From: arothman@eve.wright.edu (Aric C. Rothman)
Date: 11 Sep 92 09:05:03 EST
Organization: Wright State University

In article <716147848@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>In article <1992Sep10.132353.10614@bcrka451.bnr.ca> 
>bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca (Brad Booth) writes:
>
>It's not the break in the condom, it's the man's own stupidity.  If he's
>so worried, let him get a vasectomy.  If he's willing to take the risk
>of condoms, read CR to find out which ones are less likely to break.
>Why should a woman have to go through one of two dangerous procedures
>(abortion and pregnancy) because of a *man's* lie or a "break in condom"?  
>                                         --  Muffy Barkocy 

It's not the hole in the diaphram, it's the woman's own stupidity.  If
she's so worried, let her get a tubal ligation...Why should a man be
forced into financial servitude for 18+ years or go through the anguish
of knowing his child is being/was aborted because of a **woman's** lie
or a "hole in a diaphram?"

#include <goose_gander_axiom.h>

Aric Rothman
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Remote (Taxpayer) Wallets
Date: 8 Sep 92 03:19:31 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: The Piranha Club

# The anti-abortion people say that for everybody.  The pro-choice for
# women anti-choice for men feminists tell that only to men.  In the
# next sentence they usually claim the feminism is about "equality."
# 
# What a bunch hypocrites.

In article <1992Sep7.195138.3944@desire.wright.edu> 
sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:

>Well, when men can carry a pregnancy, then we will have total equality. 
>Until then, nature seems to have made it unequal.  Sorry about that,
>no one claimed that life guaranteed fairness.

Are not you *happy* that you have a "biological" reason to oppress men?
Is not it nice to say "It's not me!  It is just their biological destiny!"?

The anti-abortion men say that biology is destiny for women,
and they just have to carry a pregnancy to term.

Feminists like Sue say that it is men biological destiny to
pay for women choices; a poor weak woman who decides to carry
a pregnancy to term should not be expected to *pay* for her
choice, it is the man's biological destiny.

The real difference between Sue and the anti-abortion guys
is that they are a little more honest; that's all.

>Sue

Hillel                                           gazit@cs.duke.edu

"But if you don't like the risk of pregnancy, well, just don't have sex."
                      -- Paul Vixie
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: K-Mark Hostages
Date: 13 Sep 92 14:31:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BuItoE.EM1

In article <=-xn6=+.rfelix@netcom.com> rfelix@netcom.com (Robbie Felix) writes:
>In article <BuGz49.456@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

First, Mr/Ms Felix, please get your attributions correct: this was not
by me but by Janice Kendall in <1992Sep10.211522.5711@adobe.com>:

>>>I interpret this violence as being created by men
>>>who have no way of dealing with these overwhelming emotions other than to
>>>blame and act out against any one they can find.  
>
>Sorry folks, but life isn't generally fair. People get divorced, loved
>ones die, children suffer and bad things do happen. It happens to
>everyone, not just men, but to everyone of every color and age and
>sex. There is absolutely never anything that makes it acceptable for
>someone to commit acts of violence.period.


If you are leading Ghandi's life, I'll accept this from you.  
Until then, I'd ask you to consider just how much of your life 
has been based on violent acts (revolutions, wars, systematic murder).
Do you accept a world order and a standard of life based on acts of 
violence?  Would you accept despotism rather than shed any blood?
Would you have told the Boston Tea Partiers to go home and write 
letters to their representatives?  Do you accept self-defense?  
Would you tell a rape victim she couldn't pull a trigger or
press a button on a mace can to stop the rape?  Oh well, I guess
"bad things do happen."

And please *read* my posting, including the portion below that
survived your editing:

[beaver]
>>Crime is wrong; but outrageous reaction to outrageous treatment 
>>is not surprising.  Emotional +women+ do kidnap children after 
>>they lose custody battles (and also before).

[felix]
>And so do men kidnap children lost i custody battles. Please stop
>presenting that one gender has gotten all the bad luck and evil
>treatment in the world. It is a crock.

What are you objecting to, here?  If you had read the posting then
you would have seen it discussed crime perpetrated by men in emotionally
stressful situations, to which my response was that +women+ are not exempt 
from violent and/or criminal reaction to emotionally stressful situations.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Xref: sparky soc.men:16418 soc.women:16591
From: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Biological Sex Differences? ("Women only" excusable ?)
Date: 14 Sep 92 22:07:09 GMT
Reply-To: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: Florida State University, but I don't speak for them

In article <92254.223600RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET> RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET writes:
>According to the article, this syndrome is seven times as frequent in boys
>as in girls.  This seems to be a decisive argument.  Certainly no parent
>wants his/her child to have this syndrome.  It seems also hard to see how
>culture can encourage it.  How is there such a huge difference?

Autistic savantry only affects a tiny percentage of the population.  Seven
times a very tiny number is still a very tiny number.  It is, to say the least,
a bit of a stretch to conclude that this means anything in particular about
the population at large.

-EMP
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.feminism
From: sean@cae.wisc.edu (Sean Rutledge)
Subject: Re: Statistical "proofs" (Was Re: women in engineering ( help..))
Organization: College of Engineering, Univ. of Wisconsin--Madison
Date: 15 Sep 92 11:03:51 CDT

In article <1992Sep15.012225.29886@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
>In article <1992Sep14.113259.24017@panix.com> gcf@panix.com
>(Gordon Fitch) writes:
>I have.  It depends on the field you're in.  When I was doing
>relatively uninteresting record-keeping type stuff, I didn't need
>calculus.  For advanced financial stuff, I do.
>
>>The last time the Calculus requirement was debated on the net, I
>>took an informal survey of my colleagues in the craft.  Of a
>>population of 51, number who had used Calculus on the job, ever:
>>0.
>
>Why?  I don't see the connection.  Suppose we make some change,
>without knowing why there aren't more women in engineering.  There is
>no reason to believe that such a change *couldn't* get more women into
>engineering (there is likewise no reason to believe that it *would*,
>but your claim is that a random change *can't* work).
>
There was an article about education in last weeks Wall Street Journal.
One section dealt with average salaries.  Women who had at least 2 math
courses in college had an average salary either the same, or 1-2% higher
than males.  

The key here is how much math is taken.  Interesting stuff!


sean rutledge                              murphy was an optimist!!!
sean@cae.wisc.edu


-- 
sean rutledge                              murphy was an optimist!!!
sean@cae.wisc.edu
From: fedrick@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Kelvin W. Fedrick)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Do Men Have Reproductive Rights?
Date: 9 Sep 92 04:25:17 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

In article <1992Sep8.122518.6630@walter.cray.com> jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood) writes:
>
> The point is Kelvin, the best interests of the children is soaking
>fathers for every dime they can get because the courts, t.v., Hillary,
>the Children's Defense Fund(S FROM MEN), ACES, feminazis and
>Donahues all presume that fathers don't count, just their paychecks.

 Why do I get the feeling you think I am disagreing with the original
 posting? I didn't say anything negative about it! *My* point had nothing
 to do with the greater content of the posting. I simply asked a question.

 Relax and just *read* what I said instead of trying to read stuff *into*
 what I said.

>Kelvin, spend a day at family court. 

 I have. I am still getting reamed and still trying to pay my lawyer off.

-kelvin
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Male Bashers
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com
Date: 12 Sep 92 12:49:25 GMT
Organization: Electronic Data Systems, Unigraphics Division, Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: rivero

In article <1992Sep11.121203.3328@linus.mitre.org>, cgates@mitre.org (Curt Gates) writes:
> In article <1992Sep9.190508.4230@news.ysu.edu> ad815@yfn.ysu.edu (John S. 
> Kennedy) writes:
>> It always leaves me wondering ... what could have possibly happened to 
> some
>> of these women to make them hate men so much? 
>> 
>> And, quite possibily, a more important question -- what the heck do they
>> want? 
> 
> Why not ask these questions on *that* newsgroup?  I would be interested in 
> reading the answers they give you.
> 
-- 

 It's far more important, I thnk, to find out just WHY they want what they
want. Too much of feminist doctrine has been built on manufactured crises
and exaggetated threat. Like good chruchgoers in the middle ages, they all
want the witches to be burned, but never question the basic assumption
that witches exist and are a threat to "decent folk".

  Most women I've talked to argue for fair(er) pay and limits on men's
ability to harm them. In and of themselves, these seem reasonable
requests. But, the basic assumptions are not being challenged. Are men
really rhe threat they've been made out to be? Are men really that much more
highly paid for the same quality of work for the same time? Feminists,
like the inquisitors, cannot endure to have the basic assumptions examined
too closely. 

  The point is that what wmen say they want is more than likely a product of
desires and hates which have been sold to them right alongside the hair color
and designer jeans. 


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero        rivero@dev8j.mdcbbs.com     "A Human's Human!"  |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|                       I CAME,  I SAW,  I DIVORCED                      |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
From: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Male bashing in other newsgroups
Date: 10 Sep 92 21:19:22 GMT
Reply-To: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Organization: Florida State University, but I don't speak for them

In article <1992Sep10.034508.18534@ccu.umanitoba.ca> kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts) writes:
>I think it is a pretty sad person who can't enjoy this.

Hey!  I'll meet your moral high ground and raise you one:

I think it is a pretty sad person who can't enjoy laughing at a person who
enjoys this.

Oh, what the hell:

I think it is a pretty sad person who
    { [ [can't laugh | laughs at] | [can't judge | judges] ] a person who }*
enjoys this.

Build your own!

-EMP
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
From: fj05+@andrew.cmu.edu (Faisal Nameer Jawdat)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.rape,alt.child-support,soc.women
Subject: Re: I'm NOT your "family values" slave
Date: 13 Sep 92 14:23:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.QegvxhK00VpaQ5kY5R
	<1992Sep12.161650.15146@ultb.isc.rit.edu>
Organization: Sophomore, Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

kls4344@ritvax.isc.rit.edu (Person in flux) writes:
> In article <1992Sep10.221543.13529@u.washington.edu>, 
> hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress) writes:
> 
> >    "fornicate"? You're sick.  You are the lowest
> >    form of toxic slime.  I will not be
> >    you "family values" slave.
> 
> Since Mr. EuStress has resorted to ad hominem attacks, he and I obviously have
> nothing to discuss.  
> 
> Katie

wow
changes the subject and then declares victory when the oponent tells
her to f*ck off
i wish i could do that in my debates...
Newsgroups: soc.men