HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Help Please with custody under Cal. jurisdiction
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com (Michael Rivero)
Date: 11 Nov 92 09:51:39 PDT
Distribution: na
Organization: M&E (Division of EDS), Cypress CA
Keywords: California, child custody,

In article <1992Nov10.160712.10201@infonode.ingr.com>, hubbarde@infonode.ingr.com (Elaine Hubbard) writes:
|> Dear netters,
|> 
|> A good friend (single working mother) who has had custody of her son 
|> in Alabama since divorce in California five years has been presented
|> with a modification decree giving full custody to her ex.  
|> 
|> Please....if you can help, e-mail or post here.  She only has until
|> November 29 to post an appeal. 

  Frankly, you could not be in a better place to have a mother win custody.
The "Parent Connection" recently hosted a debate between various men's
rights activists and a representative of the Los Angeles Department Of
Child Services. The pro-mother bias was very much in evidence in those
debates (and for those of you who read the San Diago Grand Jury Report, the
San Diago CPS is patterned almost exactly after the Los Angeles DCS). The
lady from DCS openly stated that in case of doubt, the children are awarded
to the mother, and DCS sets the "tone" for the LA Court system. Only in 
cases where the unfitness of the mnother is proven beyond all reasonable 
doubt does the father get sole custody.  (BTW, such a case is NOT tried
in Los Angeles County Superior Court, but in Los Angeles Family Court, unless
a criminal complaint is involved. This would fit the pattern of both
LA and SD family courts which seldom "let go" of a case.)

  Your post does not mention the grounds under which the ex husband filed
his petition for custody. Under California law, women do not have to
show cause but men do; he must have had sufficient grounds to impress
a judge in what still remains a hostile court environment for fathers.

  I don't know and will not presume which is the better parent. But it seems
that her only course is to address whatever grounds he has for 
requesting custody and disprove them if possible.



<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com  "Middle-aged Mutant Ninja Animator" |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|     This is my last week at EDS (mdcbbs.com) and since I am planning   |
|    to run the animation shop as a full-time business (unless a higher  |
|    paying job comes along) I will be off the net for the near future.  |
|    I want to thank all the posters, my net-friends, and even my        |
|    net-enemies for having made this last year a most interesting and   |
|    colorful time!                                                      |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Xref: sparky soc.women:19478 alt.abortion.inequity:5059 talk.abortion:47791 alt.feminism:4316 soc.men:19210
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Date: 13 Nov 92 00:16:15 GMT
Article-I.D.: ils.1992Nov13.001615.7225
Distribution: na
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences

In article <1992Nov8.171503.8736@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <forb0004.52.721195005@student.tc.umn.edu> forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu (Eric Forbis) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov4.152507.17089@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>[hey, this post id shorter!]
>
>>>>>Sure, she controls her own body...but certain choices should not grant her
>>>>>control over his wallet.  If she chooses to carry another man's child, she
>>>>>should accept the possible consequences and the full responsiblity for her
>>>>>choice.  I didn't notice Rich saying he would force her to take any given
>>>>>course of action.  But, since her actions have an impact on him, I agree
>>>>>that he has a right to know that it's not his child.
>>>>
>>>>That's nice.  You've gien us lots of reasons why you'd *like* to know.
>>>>But you havent given us any justification for your belief that you have
>>>>a *right* to know.
>>>                                                     -- Michal   
>>>
>>>You missed that part about the husband being assumed the father of
>>>the wife's children, and his having full legal and financial responsibility
>>>for the child? 
>>> 
>>>Rich
>>
>>Not to argue with your excellent point, but fatherhood itself is the right. 
>
>When the father is -not- the husband, the husband still becomes the legal
>father-in-fact, does he not? The problem is that fatherhood and husbandhood
>are considered the same thing, in all levels os law and custom.

Also, when the father is the father in name only (ie, divorce soon after
impregnation), but is still stuck with the bills, the "fatherhood" right isn't
much of a right, but has all the responsibilities...and when one wasn't even
the responsible party in the first place...
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Organization: Penn State Computer Science
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 16:04:57 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.060244.24665@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <1dca07INNgcj@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>
>>>1.  The father denies fatherhood and demands a paternity test.
>>>If it's negative, he "wins."  If it's positive, he will have
>>>severely reduced his chances for custody.  ("If you doubt your
>>>child is yours *and* you want to escape your responsibilities,
>>>then how can I expect you to be a good parent?" asks the judge.)
>>
>>
>>I jsut don't understand this.  Do youmean that your love for the
>>child is conditional on whether its DNA matches yours?
>>
>>							--  Michal
>
>You know, this may be another point where biology gets in the way.
>The woman always knows that it is -her- child. 

Not if she has it in the hospital.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts)
Subject: Re: Am I "exploiting" this woman?
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 15:32:22 GMT

In <1992Nov5.233304.14262@m.cs.uiuc.edu> carroll@cs.uiuc.edu (Alan M. Carroll) writes:

>With that said, I also have to support Janice's right to be upset and
>think less of people because of it. That's her priviledge. It is not
>her place to legally prevent others from reading such things - it is
>her place to dislike such things and the people who read them.
I agree entirely.  I have am hoping to address a different issue though.
Nobody has put forth a rational explanation for why they consider a Chip &
Dales calender inherently offensive and in need of being banned.
Ken
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Camille Paglia(invite comments)
Date: 5 Nov 92 20:11:17 GMT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

-From: davidg@intacc.uucp (David Gilmour)
-Subject: Camille Paglia(invite comments)
-
-
-What's the most interesting idea in Camille Paglia's work? Is she the
-self-aggrandizing grandstander that she seems, a sort of female Prince. or is
-she wildly erratic, capable of real insights and then, in the same breath,
-embarrassingly wrong headed, overexcited pensees, like a kid whizzed out on
-too much birthday cake? Respond please. David

     Camille Paglia's work really has to be separated into two distinct pieces:
Her first book, Sexual Personae, which is brilliant if somewhat opinionated
and her second book,  Sex, Art and American Culture which is just  a lot
of journalism.

Here is what Updike says about the two:

[SP]  "The first chapter of Paglia's magnum opus ... is, simply, magnificent -
dense with stark truths and sweeping inslights...  Many of her readings are
brilliant - Whitman and Henry James will never look the same - but many seem
overreadings."

[SAAC]  "Camille Paglia's collection, `Sex, Art and American Culture'
(Vintage; $13) might have been more accurately, if less grandly, titled `Bits
and Pieces Spun Off by a Cultural Celebrity Newly in Orbit.'  "

I bought a copy of SAAC ($13 plus tax) and decided that I did not want
to pay that amount, for stuff at the level of the NY Times Op-Ed page.
So I took it back to the book store, but not without finding out about
CP's admiration for Elizabeth Taylor and Madonna and her disdain for
Merryl Streep and Doris Day.

It is too bad - she is a brilliant mind but is now embarked on a media
journey where she may never rise to her full  potential.

However, do read SP, it is excellent, if somewhat opinionated and while
she says many implausible things, she also says many things about the nature
of Sex, Art, Men, Women and Culture, which are well worth hearing and many
of which ring true.  They are not fashionable in the current
cultural climate, but why have the first amendment if we are not going
to make up our OWN minds on what to think of a controversial writer?

Rohit Parikh
Xref: sparky soc.women:19358 alt.feminism:4207 soc.men:19107
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Self Appreciation (was: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Date: 11 Nov 92 14:56:01
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
Distribution: usa
	<1992Nov6.030057.28538@dragon.acadiau.ca>
	<1992Nov6.165051.25204@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>
	<1dpfsmINNpr2@hp-sdd.sdd.hp.com> <srp.721517909@cgl.ucsf.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: srp@cgl.ucsf.edu's message of 11 Nov 92 21:38:29 GMT


In article <srp.721517909@cgl.ucsf.edu> srp@cgl.ucsf.edu (Scott R. Presnell) writes:
> My
> point here is that there are hunkster men in lots of magazines too - I
> notice them - I look at them - and then I look at myself and there is a
> substantial difference - moreover I hear and see women make comments and
> cast glances indicating they soemtimes think about men in a corresponding
> fashion, and sure, I want to look like the hunks *some*...

> ...but I don't let it define who I am (or am not) and I don't go around
> telling people that they "cannot understand" what it's like not living up
> to a model's image.  Give me a break.

I'm sure that that's true.  Of course, our society doesn't really stress
looks as being important for men, just for women.  For men, what is
important seems to be "masculinity."  How much of your (any man)
self-image do you think is rooted in how "male" you are?  Just think
about all the insults for men having to do with lack of "manliness."
Look at the threads here on sex, with the fears of penises being called
useless and the constant assertions that women really want "manly" men.
If you suddenly woke up as a woman, what do you think would happen to
your sense of self-worth?

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
~Weavers' fingers flying on the loom/patterns shift too fast to be
 discerned/all these years of thinking/ended up like this/in front
 of all this beauty/understanding nothing~ - Bruce Cockburn
From: acp@cray.com (Anthony Peterson)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Women in Combat
Date: 11 Nov 92 19:50:29 GMT
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.

In article <1dra9qINNfj7@transfer.stratus.com> lmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com writes:

>There are gay people all over the place in the military, yet the incidence of  
>male-->male rape is pretty low.  Sadly, the incidence of male-->female rape in  
>the service hasn't quite been educated out of existence.
>
	Why is it OK that male-->male rape is "pretty low" but sad that
	the incidence of male-->female rape "hasn't quite been educated
	out of existence"?
>
>*  NeXT: lmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com * GEnie:  Laurie.Mann  *
>*Bush, Quayle, Perot---We Said NO! * We Voted for CHANGE in '92!*
>***** "Hollywood still doesn't get it." Dan Quayle, 9/21/92 *****
>* "No Dan, YOU still don't get it."  American Voters, Fall 1992 *
>***********    Gee, do you think he gets it now????   ***********


	I don't know about Dan but I'm pretty sure that you don't get it.
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy,alt.peeves
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: More on Women in MalePreserves
Followup-To: soc.women,alt.sex
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 20:29:26 GMT

aaron@minster.york.ac.uk writes:
Aaron, please post any details that you can find.

1. There was a 'tv story' on about Forest Fire Fighters in the USA,
and I was 'just shocked' to notice that these organizations had
NonMalePersons on the front line.

	1.1: There really are NO WOMEN in Forest Fire Fighting Organizations
		who are Working on the front line.

	1.2: Forest Fire Fighting in full pack is far less Physcially demanding 
		than HeManManlyMaleMachoGuyThings like Combat.

	1.3: The whole Internal Cohesion of Forest Fire Fighting 
		frontline units have been totally devastated by the
		presence of NonMalePersons who engage in franternization
		and other internally disruptive behavior Like Not
		being HeManManlyMaleMachoPersons.

	1.4: There are NO Normal HeteroSexual NonMalePersons in
		front line Forest Fire Fighting Organizations
		and this explains the lack of the total collapse
		of the national forest fire fighting capability.

	1.5: All Forest Fire Persons are Confused about what it really
		means to develope professional respect, and close small
		unit cohesion in the face of LIFE THREATENING DANGER.

	1.6: All Forest Fire fighters are Implicitly 
		BambiHugging Moral Degenerates who do not understand
		that there are clearly defined GenderBasedRoles, and
		are a part of the Greater EcoTerrorist conspiracy
		desinged to undermine the traditional Family Values.

	1.7:	{ Obligatory MontyPython Reference about LumberJacks. }

2. I am 'pleased' that the powers that be have resolved 
NOT to allow women to volunteer for combat positions.

Now for a Small Technical Question:

	If a Unit, that contains NonMale, NonExempt Catagory,
	military personnel, finds itself in 'armed conflict'
	due to fluctuations in the FEBA

	then:
		2.1: Said NonMale Persons will be Evacuated?

		2.2: Said NonMale Persons will not be in trouble?

		2.3: Said NonMale Persons will be obliged to defend
			the perimeter like everyone else....

		2.4: The Powers that Be Will wave their Majik Wand
			And the FEBA will be redefined as a NonCombatArea
			So that NonMalePersons will not be in a Combat Area.
	fi
ciao
drieux



-- 
Modern Day Problems:
Hickory, Dickory, Dock - Three Mice Ran up a Clock
The Clock Struct one, 
and the Other Two will be Upgraded In the Next Release.
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: parker@meibm4.cen.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: Prehistoric Matriarchies
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 14:51:11 GMT

darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:
>I'm interested in the question of whether a matriarchy has ever existed
>historically.  I put "prehistoric" because as far as I know there has
>not been a matriarchal society in existence which has left clear
>evidence of its existence. 

> Fred Rice
> darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au

Jean Auel, the author of The Clan of the Cave Bear (and 3 sequels so far, that
I know of) used artifacts found across Europe and west Asia (?) to extrapolate
a semi-matriarchal culture (the Cro-Magnons).  The covers of the books show
pictures of specific pieces that have been found.  She interpreted the pieces
as evidence that women were specifically valued in the culture(s) they ^^^ came
from.  Of course, that is only one way of interpreting them; I don't know what
official archeologists think of them.

Also, the culture she describes (in the sequels) is not exactly *run* by women,
so it may not be what you are really after anyway.  (Women were more the
center of their religion.)

Check out the sequels:  The Valley of Horses, The Mammoth Hunters, The Plains
of Passage.  (She's writing a 5th and expects to write a 6th)  You may find
*some* references you could follow up--and they're good books anyway!  8-)

-Rob
Xref: sparky soc.women:19461 alt.feminism:4295 soc.men:19191
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: what is sexist? (was Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Date: 12 Nov 92 15:29:04
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1992Nov6.150355.9849@rtf.bt.co.uk> <BxC8n0.Au9@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
	<lfqj54INN98m@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>
	<38MD03ktbajB00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: jsp@uts.amdahl.com's message of 12 Nov 92 22:23:53 GMT

In article <38MD03ktbajB00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James Preston) writes:
> [...] My dictionary [...]
> Similarly, "sexism" is defined as:
> "Discrimination by members of one sex against the other, especially by
> men agains women, based on the assumption that one sex is superior."
> Notice that it clearly says *especially* by men against women, not
> exclusively.  And again, no qualifiers about the "non-dominant group".

Well, that's very interesting.  If we accept your dictionary's
definition of sexism, it would follow that a woman who discriminated
against men, but did not assume that women were superior to men, would
not be sexist, since the discrimination has to be based on the
assumption that one sex is superior.  In that case, something like
affirmative action would not be sexist, since it is based on the
assumption that neither sex is superior.

I'm not sure if I agree with this definition, but it certainly puts an
interesting light on "reverse sexism," since that would have to be based
on the assumption that women are superior.

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
~Weavers' fingers flying on the loom/patterns shift too fast to be
 discerned/all these years of thinking/ended up like this/in front
 of all this beauty/understanding nothing~ - Bruce Cockburn
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Entry level salaries (was: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 18:50:43 GMT

In article <1dohiiINNaie@transfer.stratus.com> dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber) writes:
>In article <GFZSBZ9@cc.swarthmore.edu>, auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer) writes:
>> In article <MUFFY.92Nov9082355@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>> >In article <9NOV199210165558@mary.fordham.edu> nissim@mary.fordham.edu (Leonard J. Nissim) writes:
>
>[deleted]
>
>> Perhaps, women's higher wages, (the implication by Leonard being that the
>> difference is small), may be fully explained in that women math Ph.D.'s are
>> more of a commodity than men math Ph.D.'s (which if one accepts Leonard's
>> claim as being accurate would imply that the value of being a female
>> commodity in a more traditionally male discipline is not particularly rewarding
>> financially.  Granted there is an implied causal link in there which may not
>> exist, yet I am unfrightened by that possibility.)
>
>Very possibly.  According to Dinesh D'souza (in Illiberal Education), Ph.D's
>in the hard sciences are so rare among certain groups (I believe he cited
>blacks and women as the two standout cases) that universities (and companies
>to some extent) would literally engage in bidding wars for them; so much so
>that a black math Ph.D might end up with a salary half again as high as a
>white with comparable experience.  So he gets the money, but for all the wrong
>reasons.  Sigh.

How does that go, as you sow, so also shall ye reap. In the current political
climate, these -are- the correct reasons.

Ans the number of doctorates is way down for all fields as I understand
it, another aspect of political funding battles.
 
>> -dave
>#include <std_disclaimer.h>
>Dan S.


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Xref: sparky soc.women:19222 soc.men:18994
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Unrealistic objectification.
Date: 10 Nov 92 01:02:14 GMT
Followup-To: soc.women
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <1992Nov7.170150.12610@dragon.acadiau.ca> 891666t@dragon.acadiau.ca (Trish Turliuk) writes:
> It *does* bother me that what society has governed to be beautiful is put 
>up on a wall. Unrealistic objectification.

	Ummm, I find women's bodies, even 2 dimensional representations
of them, sexy and interesting.  That's not because of advertising, or even
because I don't see as many as I could ever want.  It's a natural expression
of my sexuality, as valid as "Cuddling, kisses, and pillow talk turn me
on".  I'd rather you laughed about it (like my wife does) rather than
curse me for it and demand that I change...
From: parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Sad Day for Liberty
Date: 7 Nov 92 18:13:35 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.BxCyMo.BGu
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

jrmo@volta.att.com (J.R.Moore) writes:
[parts deleted]

>I have a real disagreement with homosexuals.  I am not convinced that
>homosexuality is like being left-handed.  I am not convinced that social
>factors don't influence sexual preference.  I am not convinced that 
>there is absolutely no choice in sexual preference.  And I admit, I 
>don't even understand what sexual preference really means, (attraction
>to same sex characteristics, same sex anatomy, particular sex acts,)
>and why opposite sex people can't simulate such an attraction.  So
>I guess I'm part of this religious right your talking about.  And I 
>guess people I know who side with you on every other issue but still
>think homosexuality is 'deviant' are also part of that religious right.

There is *some* evidence that homosexuality may be influenced by physiological
factors.  However, whether they are "born that way" or become that way through
"social factors" makes no difference.  It is a *part* of them and to attempt to
"convert" them amounts to brainwashing.  (I'm pretty sure brainwashing is
illegal, though I don't remeber hearing any particular case about it.)  How
about thinking about a *similar* (but more familiar) situation:

Most people have *favorite* sports teams.  Suppose everyone at work is a Cubs
fan except for one person.  This person likes another team say, the Dodgers.
The Cubs fans always assumed that everyone at work was a Cubs fan.  Being a
Dodger fan seems 'deviant' to them.  One day, they find the Dodger fan listening
to a Dodger-Cub game (realistic? I don't follow Baseball very much) and rooting
for the Dodgers.  They can't understand it.  They decide they can't tollerate
this.  They try to "talk him out of" being a Dodger fan.  He just says, "you
like who you like, I like who I like."  The Cubs fans talk to the boss (who
also happens to be a Cubs fan) who decides that in the interest of group
harmony, he has to fire the Dodger fan. . . . Rediculous eh?

Of course, such an extreem reaction would be pretty silly.  Much more likely,
the Cubs fans would be uncomfortable around the Dodger fan.  He can sense their
hostility, but at least they never act on it. . . . Still pretty rediculous.

But that is pretty much what you are saying, that you would be uncomfortable
knowing someone felt differently about something that may be influenced by
social factors.  Try to be more understanding.  It really isn't that big a deal
if they aren't flaunting it in your face.  (Which makes people uncomfortable in
other situations, too.)

>Joe Moore

-Rob
Xref: sparky soc.women:19164 alt.feminism:4030 soc.men:18950