HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Artificial Wombs
Date: 14 Dec 1992 00:52:27 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:

>In article <1g0ilgINNrul@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>>
>>>If doctors refuse to perform a "current procedure" abortion, but will 
>>>perform an incubator transplant (heh, we named the procedure already!) 
>>>then the issue of what is legal is moot.  
>>
>>I find this terminology, with it's implication that the woman in
>>a mere "incubator", rather insulting.

>If you don't view the uterus as an incubator, from a medical sense, just 
>what IS it in this context?

I think you missed my point.  Your terminology of "incubator transplant"
connotes (IMO) that the woman herself is a mere "incubator".

Moreover, a uterus is not merely an incubator.  It is a part of a woman's.
body.  Lest you think that it is only interesting to medicine in its role
as an incubator for foetuses, allow me to remind you that a great amount
of money is spent on the study of endometriosis and utererine cancer.

-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: What's really behind this "men's choice" thing?
Date: 14 Dec 92 18:56:41 GMT
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <28148@optima.cs.arizona.edu> bweiss@cs.arizona.edu (Beth Weiss) writes:
>At this point, I'll chalk up this accusation to J Dunphy's confusion.  If,
>on the other hand, he is not confused, then he is deliberately accusing me
>of soemthing I have never done, and never would do.

	In my opinion, Joseph Dunphy is a paranoid pinhead and a
whining weenie.  Remember, this is the guy who starts flame wars and
responds to email by calling your system administrator and threatening
to sue you in Federal court for harrassment.  Under the theory that
since way way at the bottom of his long nonsensical flames he says "no
email please" if you send him any you're guilty of a Federal crime.

	The boy has problems, Ms. Weiss.  Ignore him.
								W.rat



Newsgroups: soc.men,talk.rape,talk.politics.guns
From: osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X)
Subject: Re: Vigilantes
Organization: Twilight Zone
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 00:10:32 GMT

In article <GPRIORES.92Dec15135223@fish.oracle.com> gpriores@oracle.com (gordon prioreschi) writes:
>
>It seems that you might be implying, though, that respect for an
>opinion includes the belief that it is of merit equivalent to that of
>any other (a canonical stance in some "intellectual" circles). 
					^^^^^^^^^^^^
	That should probably read "politically correct" :)

	-Andy V.
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth)
Subject: Re: Duck and Jive (was Re: Pre-Sex Contract )
Organization: Software Engineering Institute
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 08:33:34 EST

In article <1992Dec18.072101.14111@netcom.com> desiree@netcom.com (Desiree Champagne) writes:

>	Forget it Firth.  I don't buy it and I'm still (and getting more
>so) tired of the whiny men that complain about the wallet.  As I said before,
>if you can't pay the price -- don't enter the game.  The risks are
>there -- even if you don't like them.
>
>	If you can't understand that, you can't.  But don't bother me
>with your crap.  
>
>	The subject is dead.  Leave it there.  Understand?

Get stuffed, bigot.  This is soc.men and I'll post whatever I damn
well please.  If you can't take men's opinions, and can't respond to
men's arguments, then get the hell out of our space, and good riddance.
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.culture.new-zealand,soc.motss,soc.women
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Gays Assume the Posture f
X-To: JIM BOWERY
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 21:39:00 GMT

jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes...
JB> Better luck next time, AIDS-vectors.

This is *extremely* offensive against homosexuals, Jim.  Though I am not
gay myself, I dislike stereotypical comments about *any* group.

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

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * If your mind goes blank, remember to turn off the sound.
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Male Choice (1)
Date: 17 Dec 1992 14:15:55 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <724619306@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:
>In article <1gohs1INN10a@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com 
>(Adrienne Regard) writes:
>
>>Ah.  So not supporting a change you or someone else proposed (for 
>>reasons sufficient to me at the time) equates to fighing against?
>You wrote several articles against that.
>*I* see it as a fighting against that.

Uh huh.  Well, since you see any female who doesn't specifically kowtow to
your foolishness as a 'rabid feminist', too, I'll take leave to use my
own interpretation.

What I did, and I was quite clear about it in the posts in question if
you would care to eat your words by going back and looking it up, was point
out inconsistancies and weaknesses in the arguments presented, so that
those presenting the arguments could consider plugging those holes.

The arguments I've seen so far for male-choice are as holey as colanders.
And certainly aren't going to make any strides with the faulty logic behind
them.  The act of pointing out problems with arguments is the act of the
'loyal opposition' I believe it's called.  It helps people with brains
enough to think straight realize that they may need to consider a point or
two from a different perspective.

True enough, most folks reading these postings don't bother with the fine
points of communication.  Most folks figure lack of complete capitulation
from the outset is ipso facto disagreement, and as we can see, some people
are dumb enough to conclude that disagreement is the same thing as armed
conflict.

Of course, some of us are capable of finer analysis, and don't share this
problem with you.


I also note that you specifically reject help, Hillel.

And consider that, AFTER *you* have rejected something someone puts forth
that THEY have 'worked against' the proposal.

That's a very interesting analysis of what goes on, now isn't it?

>Why do you insist about telling me what's good for men?

Because, my darling Hillel, *you* *asked*.  You *will* note, won't you,
that I haven't initiated a conversation with you in at least a year.
The only time I bother with your crap is when you butt your head in to
twist about other's words.  And that's only because is so disgustingly
easy I can do it and eat a ham sandwich at the same time.

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: soc.men,talk.rape
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.child-support
Subject: inequity in child support (was Re: I HAD NO CHOICE
Date: 13 Dec 1992 01:11:35 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:

>Child support amounts are set based on the noncustodial
>parents income or ability to make a set amount. 

You clearly know a great deal about the inequities of the 
child support system. What is your interpretation of how
these inequities arose in our historically male-dominated
court system?  


-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: daw@cray.com (Dave Wright)
Subject: Re: I HAD NO CHOICE ( was: Biological reasons etc...
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 14 Dec 92 11:07:22 CST

There is talk of charging the incarcerated. This means you can't even go to
jail and live on nothing. Debtor prison with rent.

Dave W


Xref: sparky soc.men:21347 alt.dads-rights:3001 alt.abortion.inequity:5995 alt.child-support:4000
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: I HAD NO CHOICE ( was: Biological reasons etc...
Date: 18 Dec 92 00:22:05 GMT
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: The Immoral Minority

#Actually, it sounds like he's upset that he got a RAW DEAL from the state. 
#He not only lost his house and his kids, but he also gets to lose a big
#chunk of his income, keeping him from getting ahead again.  While his
#ex-wife gets to live in his house with his kids, he gets to live like a
#slave.  How nice.

In article <43XXVB1w165w@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca> lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca writes:

> What is this? A wee bit of misogyny?  Talk about inflammatory generalizing!!!
> Not ALL women are nasty, just as not all men are assholes. 

The laws set in such a way that women can win, a lot, by being nasty.
Quite a few people just can't stand the the temptation regardless of
their race, sex and other irrelevant details.

> We all know there's a lot of wolves in sheep's clothing out there. The
> question is, how do we turn such folk around so that there's more
> "Win-Win" relationships, and less "I Win, You Lose" nastiness?  

1) Stop giving women a prize for being nasty, and give stiff punishment 
   in every case where there is a clear proof that someone is lying.       

2) Let men a fair chance to win a divorce case.  The current system where
   women win sole custody in 90%+ of the case will have to be changed.

> Please
> do your part by contemplating the issues --- and possible solutions ---
> with us, and not standing on a platform of such non-productive, destructive,
> and blanket gender-bashing.

A solution that I suggested once was the following arbitration:
"if both parents are competent, let them both submit proposals for
custody and child's support.  The one who asks for the smaller 
amount will get the custody of the kids."

In a system like this, every parent will ask for the amount it really needs
to support the children, and no more.  Also, because there will not be such
a financial gain in winning the custody, a compromise will be more likely.
The small details which are in the center of the court battle today will lose
their importance because there will have to be a real proof for incompetence.

Comments?

>Lisa.

Hillel                                      gazit@cs.duke.edu

"Legal" doesn't necessarily mean "good" -- or "right" -- or "reasonable".
Do you really just base your actions on what is and isn't _legal_?  Do you
really just hand over all your decision-making power to the government?
                                       -- Diane Holt
Xref: sparky soc.men:21119 alt.abortion.inequity:5879 alt.feminism:5976
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited
Date: 13 Dec 1992 20:50:07 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

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

>What makes you think a man OR A WOMAN is obligated to stay with,
>pursue, keep in touch with, observe, or continue any sort of
>relationship with someone he or she has slept with?

Common decency?  Sigh!  Perhaps it *is* an oxymoron.

>Did it occur to you that one or three night stands occur, that year-long
>relationships end without the couple wanting to see each other again,
>that men and women move out of town or get busy with work, that not 
>every pair of sex partners has the same group of friends?

Then why would these people be so het up about raising kids with
this particular partner??

-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.child-support
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: inequity in child support (was Re: I HAD NO CHOICE
Date: 13 Dec 1992 20:44:37 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:

>A general
>study of society in the past would reveal... People
>were taught to believe and did believe that men and women
>were different, had different rights and responsibilities. 

>So, does that answer your query?

That's the obvious answer, but I was rather hoping for a 
discussion of specific influences on the development of 
these ideas.  I'm real interested in the development of
sociological thought with time.  I was hoping you'd be
able to steer me toward some interesting reading.

>it will take men [and women] a while to correct the
>injustices in the domestic relations court system.  But we will.

>Our struggle has nothing to do with misogyny and everything to do with
>equality, equal opportunity to be parents, and fair and equitable
>treatment under the law.  Child support is but one issue we are
>addressing.
>Here are others: [most of list deleted for brevity]

>Is that so wrong?

No.  Most of it is quite sensible (although I'm not sure how
practical some of the provisions -- like accountability for  
child custody awards.  I don't think most people are very good 
at keeping such records.  They should be, but they aren't.  
That doesn't mean, however that your organizations shouldn't
be working for such legislation.  It just means that education
will be needed along with the legislation.)


-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!
From: daf@bbn.com (David Fagan)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Join a Boston area Men's Group
Date: 17 Dec 1992 22:19:50 GMT
Organization: BBN Sytems & Technologies
Distribution: ne
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com



               Boston Area Men's Group Seeks Participants


We are a Men's Group looking for a few new members. Group members have
ranged in
age from 22 to 50. We are married, single, divorced, some are fathers
(children
from infant to college age), professionals, and students. The group has 
existed
for two years.

The format is informal, meetings have a minimum structure with plenty of
time
for just talking. Meetings usually have a central topic, around which we
sometimes create activities or rituals, and yes, we do drum. We are a peer
group
- there is no one "leader". Meetings are weekly and last 2-3 hours.

Prior to joining the group, most of us had little experience with groups,
ritual, or the men's movement. We are surprisingly "normal" people who have
been
lucky enough to find ourselves in an atmosphere where we can be ourselves
and
make friends. There are opportunities for "deep" explorations, but we don't
expect them to occur without a foundation of friendship and trust. No
pressure,
no instant closeness. Our goal is to challenge, not intimidate each other.

Meeting topics have included families, work, relationships, sexuality,
cultures,
gender roles, meaning of life, travel...

Once in a while, we meet for outside activities such as dinners,  sailing,
movies, and overnight trips. The group is ongoing, there are no start or
end
dates. There is no charge for participation.

We welcome men of all ages, cultures, and backgrounds.
All we ask is your openness, energy, and willingness to make a commitment
if you
decide the group is right for you.

In return we provide safety, candid feedback, and total acceptance.

-*- friendship -*- music -*- humor -*- ritual -*- brotherhood -*- trust -*-

Contact:
	David Fagan
	daf@bbn.com
	w) (617) 873-3246
	h) (617) 648-2534
From: ematz@world.std.com (Ed Matz)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Distilled Wisdom on Mens Issues
Date: 12 Dec 92 20:38:04 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

In article <1992Dec9.141135.14824@linus.mitre.org> cgates@mitre.org (Curt Gates) writes:
>Dave s postings of the organization list and the list of books are real 
>foundation stones and resources for this newsgroup.

>Is there any support for creating distilled wisdom answers for people who 
>sense something is wrong but dont even know what questions to ask?  Would 
>anyone care to offer a list of what they personally believe are the 12 
>most important mens issues?

Interesting, and important point.   But I get nervous when I hear talk
of setting down the "12 most important issues" for men.   It begins to
sound like the founding graces of a National Organization of Men,
complete with dogma, political agenda, and Politically Correct language.
For my money, the most energizing aspect of the "men's movements" is
the degree to which dissent and disagreement is fostered and encouraged.

When a man comes to me and tells me that he senses that something is wrong
but doesn't know what, I talk with him, a bit.   In the course of talking,
I sugest a book or two, like Aaron Kipnis' _Knights Without Armor_ (Jeremy
P. Tarcher, 1991), Robert Bly's _Iron John_ (Addison-Wesley, 1990),
Sam Osherson's _Finding Our Fathers_ (Fawcett Columbine, 1986) or
his most recent one, _Wrestling With Love_ (Fawcett Columbine, 1992).
These are books that look at what I feel are some of the more pressing
personal issues for men, and being presented this way they enable
the hunter to find his own prey, not that of his neighbor.
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.dads-rights
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: List of some men's movement and fathers' rights groups
X-To: DAVE GROSS
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 17:38:00 GMT

Dave, don't forget these two:

Fathers For Justice
P.O. Box 3034
Kitchener, Ontario
N2G 4R5
(519) 888-0909 / (416) 549-KIDS

(Owen Sound, Ontario branch: P.O. Box 111, Owen Sound, Ontario, N4K 5P1,
(519) 371-6522/0517)


In Search of Justice
P.O. Box 14
Woodbridge, Ontario
L4L 1A9
(416) 851-3496


...I also believe that you didn't mention FREE, but I suspect that my mail
reader might have clipped out the reference (it *sometimes* clips out parts of
messages, ugh...).  The only reason why I'd suspect something like that, is
because they are so high profile, iw., how *could* you forget about FREE?

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

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Can you do the Picard Maneuver in a Grand Am?
Xref: sparky soc.men:21163 alt.dads-rights:2946 alt.child-support:3963
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: I HAD NO CHOICE ( was: Biological reasons etc...
Date: 14 Dec 92 18:19:04 EST
Organization:  Wright State University 

In article <Bz98G7.2FAs@austin.ibm.com>, frank@austin.ibm.com (F. Karner) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Dec11.144451.8946@bmw.mayo.edu>, bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron) writes:
>> In article <2195@newsserver.cs.uwindsor.ca>, bouche2@server.uwindsor.ca (BOUCHER DAVID            ) writes:
>> |> 
>> |> personally, i don't give a rat's ass about 'reproductive choice', because i
>> |> WANTED kids... i loved having them around... i didn't mind changing diapers
>> |> or getting up early to help them get dressed for school... i was a good
>> |> father, and i did my best to help them grow up strong and self-confident...
>> |> my kids used to have a father, but now they have a visitor...
>> |> 
>> |> i just don't understand how the family courts can be so vicious and so
>> |> ignorant... i can't help but wonder... did they have to take EVERYTHING??
>> |> 
>> 
>> So, are you objecting to supporting the children you wanted, or
>> just pissed off that their mother left you?
>> 
>> -- 
>> --Bruce
>> -----------------------------------------------------
>> Bruce M. Cameron		bmc@mayo.edu
>> Mayo Foundation			voice: (507) 284-3288
>> 200 1st St SW			fax:   (507) 284-9623
>> Rochester, MN 55905		ARS -- WD9CKW
> 
> What kind of a jerk are you?  That insensitive and offensive remark was
> totally uncalled for.  I bet you didn't even take the time to *READ*
> what David had to say, just went right for the punch below the belt.
> 
> You owe David an apology.
> -- 
> 
>          DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this posting are mine
>             solely and do not represent my employer in any way.
>        F. A. Karner AIX Technical Support | karner@austin.vnet.ibm.com

I totally agree.  Bruce, you were way out of line.

Sue
Xref: sparky soc.men:21135 alt.dads-rights:2939 alt.abortion.inequity:5900 alt.child-support:3950
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: I HAD NO CHOICE ( was: Biological reasons etc...
Date: 18 Dec 1992 20:50:38 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

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

>A solution that I suggested once was the following arbitration:
>"if both parents are competent, let them both submit proposals for
>custody and child's support.  The one who asks for the smaller 
>amount will get the custody of the kids."

It sounds like this proposal is more interested in giving rights to 
the richer parent, than in doing what's best for the child.  How
convenient for you that (on average) men are wealthier than women.

-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: I HAD NO CHOICE ( was: Biological reasons etc...
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 03:41:23 GMT
Organization: MCSNet, Chicago, IL

In article <BzH453.Ct0@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU> boe@cadsun2.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Robert Boeninger) writes:
>One question might be in connection with your proposal, what about the
>often large difference in income between the two parents.  In this case
>the support they need would differ correspondingly.  How do you incorporate
>that into your scheme?
>Bob Boeninger

By whose choice does that difference exist?

I posit the following:

1)	Our educational system allows people to become educated with
	equality.  In fact, it favors women over men at present in many
	schools.  Therefore, there is >no excuse< for not being able to
	support one's self.

2)	People choose their own vocations.

3)	People choose who stays home with the kids and who works.  Ideally
	it would be a 50-50 split; women ought to insist on staying current
	in the workplace.

4)	Forfeiting your career >by choice< should not impose a liability on
	another person.   That is, if you want kids, find an equitable
	solution with your partner to the parenting problem or don't have
	'em.

5)	Every person should have a trade sufficient to support at least
	themselves and any others they intend to have dependant on them.
	That list of dependants is by the nature of the remaining of these
	postulates limited to those who are children (under 18-21 years old).

You want choices?  Fine.  With them come responsibility.  

--
Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900] Anon. arch. (nuucp) 00:00-06:00 C[SD]T
Request file: /u/public/sources/DIRECTORY/README for instructions
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,talk.rape