HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: frank@austin.ibm.com (F. Karner)
Subject: Re: Can Michal Put Her Money Where Her Mouth Is?
Originator: frank@karner.austin.ibm.com
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 18:22:37 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division


In article <C1D3JI.72M@cs.psu.edu>, beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
> >beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
> >>peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
> >>>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
> >>>
> >>>>Okay, Michal, you have 6 months to find *either* Rich Payne's
> >>>>birth certificate or my son's birth certificate.  Otherwise I
> >>>>claim the right to adopt your first child against your wishes.
> >>>
> >>>An interesting proposition.  What if it is against my husband's 
> >>>wishes?
> >
> >>Both of you can look.
> >
> >For someone who claims to be a proponent of "male choice" you 
> >seem pretty willing to waive away my husband's claim to his (future)
> >child.  Just thought I'd point out your hypocracy.
> 
> Yes, my interests in equality do portray hippocracy, to coin a word; but 
> I don't see any hypocrisy in pointing out the consequences of YOUR position.
> 
> 
> Don't forget, YOU proposed that it would be easy to check county records 
> in order to preserve parental rights.  You and your husband should be 
> motivated to perform the EASY task of finding a public birth record.
> 
> Indeed, unlike the single man who would face the task of EASILY checking 
> all public records everywhere (according to your position), you now have 
> the advantage of your husband's motivated help PLUS some hints.
> 
> 
> Go to it, Michal.  Save your children from forced adoption!
> Show us how easy you think it is!
> 
> Don
> -- 
> beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged

Well said, Don.  Your arguments make perfect sense.  The charge of
hypocracy (sic) was unfounded, as you pointed out, and probably
motivated by deeply rooted feminist bias.

By the way, does "hippocracy" mean government by the hippopotami?  Is
there a hidden message here? :-)
-- 

         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
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Privacy -- and responsibility
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 21:40:43 GMT

In article <1993Jan19.152645.18719@hellgate.utah.edu> galt%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu writes:
>In article <1993Jan19.061956.14947@netcom.com>, payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>I do not speak for others in this thread. But I would be happy with
>>the simple admission that the situation is a burden upon -both-
>>parties. The woman is unlikely to go to jail over the situation,
>>no matter how badly she handles things, she is not assumed guilty.
>>The man has no saftey net or room for error if the posts here are
>>accurate (does anyone claim innacuracy for the posted situations?).
>>
>>The mans obligation has been characterized as simply writing a check,
>>no work at all.
>
>Wow, I get to put away my asbestos underwear for a few minutes...  :)
>
>Yes, I'll agree with the above...
>
>>The current situation specifically denies any shred of authority to
>>the man, not even the simple curtesy of notification that he might be
>>a father. The woman can bear the child and put it up for adaption
>>without notifying the father, who may wish to raise the child.
>
>While I think it would be a violation of privacy (and a burden) to force 

What exactly is the burden? Why is it a volation of privacy to notify
the -father- that he is indeed a father? There are two adults involved
at minumum, pregnancy is -not- a personal decision.

>the woman to hunt down all potential fathers when she gets pregnant, 

If she cannot identify the father, then there is a different problem.
I pity the poor bloke who's name gets the decision dart.

>I think the men should be able to ask her and expect the truth.  (e.g.

Since she has no legal requirement, she probably either would not answer,
or lie rather than telling a difficult truth. I dount that this would matter 
in court, or that the state would be concerned when they start garnishing 
wages. If lying is as good as telling a difficult truth, why bother with the 
difficulty?

>"Just thought I would check to see if you are pregnant, because if you
>aren't, I'm planning on getting married, buying a house and adopting
>5 kids." to which she would reply "Yes" or "No" or "Yes, but I don't
>know if it is yours")  If she lies and says no, then the man should
>(and probably already does) have some extra leverage in a paternity
>suit.

I'd be interested to hear of any cases where the father was lied to and
lost.
 
>----
>Join the Greg Alt boycott! Put /galt/h :j in your killfile today!
>----


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: soc.men
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Privacy -- and responsibility
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 19:37:04 GMT

In article <30452@optima.cs.arizona.edu> bweiss@cs.arizona.edu (Beth Weiss) writes:
>Karl Denninger writes:
>|> Not true.  She made the decision to marry OF HER OWN FREE WILL.  The other
>|> party is not responsible for what she could have had as a career had she
>|> chosen to continue it (note that marriage does NOT mean you must stop
>|> working if you're a woman, only that it is convenient to do so if you can
>|> sap off a man instead).  In fact, it could be argued that the man is owed
>|> instead if the woman decided at marriage not to work -- the man was deprived
>|> of some substantial portion of his funds as a result (he had to support
>|> her)
>|> 
>|> Neither is it relavent what her standard of living would be if she had
>|> stayed married if the majority of the support during the marriage came 
>|> from the man.  Again, the choice to not work and continue her carrer was
>|> <hers>.
>
>In most cases, isn't it _THEIRS_, rather than hers?  

The issue under discussion (but deleted from the text above) was the
womans standard of living -after- a divorce. 

>For example, he gets a great job offer, so she gives up her job
>and follows him to where his new job is because they think
>it's best for their family.
>
>Another example: he quits work for a few years, and goes back
>to school, while she supports them, because it's best for
>their family.
>
>Another: she quits work (or cuts back) to stay home more with
>the children, because they think it's best for their family. 
>[this one could be that he quits work, of course]
>
>When one member of a married couple makes a career decision,
>it's made in the context of their marriage, not in a vacuum,
>and presumably with the input of the spouse.  

After a divorce things change. 

>That means it is made with the assumption that the marriage will continue. 

Or concievably, the larger the mans salary, the bigger the alimony
and child support. Some women do marry for money.

>Isn't that part of the basis for the community property
>laws in some states: financial choices made by spouses are
>made together--and both are contributing to the assets of the
>marriage.

Who gets the assets after the divorce? I would say that it would be
to a womans advantage to push her husband as far as she can, then
divorce him for not being there, and keep the house, and a large
chunck of his salary, obligation free.
 
>--Beth Weiss
>bweiss@cs.arizona.edu


Rich

payner@netcom.com
From: shimeall@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (timothy shimeall)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: adoption rules
Date: 22 Jan 93 23:44:47 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization

Newsgroups edited due to site subscription limits.

In article <1jnmblINNlqn@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>[...]  What do you propose to 
>safeguard the father's right to stop an adoption, yet safeguard the
>mother and the child in the cases where the mother feels that the 
>father is potentially abusive?

I think you'll agree that this mechanism must be just as available
to the father as to the mother.  If a father feels that the mother
is potentially abusive, he should be able to secure protection for the
child from the mother immediately upon birth.

How about convincing a court to dissolve the parent's rights?  That
one parent doesn't just "feel" the other is "potentially abusive",
but has probable cause to expect that she/he poses a threat to 
the complaining parent and the child.

I really doubt that we can defend any lesser standard (such as
convincing a CPS officer).  If we are serious about human rights,
such as the right to act as a parent to one's biological offspring,
then _only_ a court has the power to suspend or dissolve those rights.

Now -- what is needed is a low-cost and rapid-response mechanism to
get a court to make a decision on whether it is appropriate to safeguard
a father (mother) and child from a potentially abusive mother (father).

OK, how do we 
 -- a. define the grounds that the courts should use to determine if
       a parent and child is at risk from the other parent?
 -- b. prevent this mechanism from being used to prejudice custody
       cases (as child-abuse accusations are currently used)?
				Tim
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.dads-rights
From: garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod)
Subject: Re: adoption rules
Followup-To: alt.dads-rights
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 21:34:47 GMT

In article <1jss5tINNkd2@gap.caltech.edu>, peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
> 
> Don, I've thought about it alot this weekend.  I've concluded that 
> the *good* of protecting the father's right to stop an adoption is not
> worth the *bad* of subjecting the mother and child to the risk of 
> injury from an abusive father.  Thus I cannot condone a legal 
> requirement for paternal notification.  
>                                             - Michal

I consider the above paragraph to be the most sexist statement I have
seen posted in this group.

There are procedures to terminate parental rights of any abusive parent.22

With regard to rape and special case situations I still feel notification
should apply if the rapist is known.  (Of course there have to be
exceptions for cause, but a hearing should be made and the mother
should be on record, under penalties of perjury.)  It is not acceptable
for a mother to have the choice, by herself, to eliminate any father
from any child`s life.  The Supreme Court has previously said that
parental rights are more precious than property rights and I agree
with that.
There is a difference between giving a female total control over a
fetus and child.
I would love to see a rapist stuck with 18 or more years a child support
payments.  Maybe that might make them think twice about rape!
I see nothing wrong with limiting a rapist`s rights to visitation,
custody, etc.  (Providing there is a court hearing)

I also believe that to be eligible for any welfare payment because of
the presence of a child, paternity must be established and support
order required.  (Of course, exceptions for cause.)
It is time to make individuals responsible for their actions and not
society in general.

David Garrod
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Drunk Sex = Rape?
From: <RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Friday, 22 Jan 1993 14:38:49 EST
Distribution: world
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

-My only point was that even in situations where a man tries to interpret a
-woman's
-desires and thinks that he's operating in a regime of mutual consent, he can
-suddenly find that some people would interpret his actions in a much more
-sinister light. I brought this up only because many people (most of them women,
-but not all of them) make light of or don't understand the risks that
-(perfectly ethical) men assume in this area.
-
-Now, a better response to my posting would be to point out that if the path of
-righteousness was easy, everyone could do it. I would be forced to agree that
-just because ethical behaviour can be difficult or risky doesn't mean we have
-any smaller obligation to be ethical. However, I would also caution that
-erecting barriers to ethical behaviour won't exactly encourage its greater
-currency.
-
-Elias Israel
-eisrael@east.sun.com
-
   I think you are conceding far too much.  It is one thing to admit that
doing the ethical thing may be difficult.  It is quite another thing when
the difficulty is of KNOWING what is ethical.  E.g. if you are in a hurry, you
may park illegally and then of course you take the risks.  But it is quite
another matter if the city refuses to post clear signs so that you do not
even know WHEN you are parking illegally.  This is not merely a difficult
situation, it is a situation which is inherently unjust.

Rohit Parikh
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: @nx01.mik.uky.edu (Michael J. Chilton)
Subject: Romeo and Casanova
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 20:05:30 GMT


	What is it that wemon like so much about Romeo and Casanov 


-- NewsGrazer, a NeXTstep(tm) news reader, posting --
M>UQR=&8P7&%N<VE[7&9O;G1T8FQ<9C!<9FYI;"!4:6UE<RU2;VUA;CM<9C%<
M9G-W:7-S($AE;'9E=&EC83M]"EQM87)G;#$R,`I<;6%R9W(Q,C`*7'!A<F1<
M='@Y-C!<='@Q.3(P7'1X,C@X,%QT>#,X-#!<='@T.#`P7'1X-3<V,%QT>#8W
M,C!<='@W-C@P7'1X.#8T,%QT>#DV,#!<9C!<8C!<:3!<=6QN;VYE7&9S-#A<
M9F,P7&-F,"!<"@I<9C%<9G,R-"`)5VAA="!I<R!I="!T:&%T('=E;6]N(&QI
M:V4@<V\@;75C:"!A8F]U="!2;VUE;R!A;F0@0V%S86YO=F$_($]R(&1O('1H
&97D_"GT*
`
Xref: sparky soc.men:23434 alt.feminism:7728
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Duck and Jive (was Re: Pre-Sex Contract)
Date: 27 Jan 93 19:37:27 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <C1IsMF.8A4@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>This has become, essentially, yet another item in the the
>perennial welfare argument, and no longer belongs in the
>present newsgroups -- in my opinion.  Carole's story is
>valid if the welfare queen myth has truth in it, and not 
>otherwise.
>
>My basic contention has been that there are alternatives to
>individual responsibility for fatherhood (or other
>contributions to the results of reproductive behavior)
>besides dumping the whole burden on those who happen to have
>female bodies and aren't quick enough on the uptake to get
>an immediate abortion unless they have in hand an armor-
>plated contract from someone to support the outcome.

Who dumps the whole burden? Surrogate mothers have been unable to
part with the child, and kept them, after the hopeful parents had
paid all expenses for nine months. The courts upheld her right to
do so.

You can always blame society. Or better yet, whatever man is involved.

>Hillel thinks that would mean we would all start breeding off 
>the bottom and collapse socially.  I suggest we agree to
>disagree until the next great talk.politics.* welfare circus
>comes to town.
>
>I've also taken exception to the way in which the issue of
>paternal responsibility has been discussed -- very largely

"taken exception"???

>without any concern for the well-being of the possible 
>children involved or the community as a whole.  This is a
>criticism of all ideological positions, _pace_ Will Steeves.

Then you miss the rather obvious fact that the welfare of the
children is a direct consequence of the welfare of the parents.
Parents who cannot take care of themselves cannot take care of 
their children.
 
>In fact, I think it's more of a criticism of feminists,
>since I expect them to be intelligent and perceptive,
>especially about social issues 

There is a remarkable similarity between percieved attacks on
feminism and consipracy theories, everything proves them both.
It has been repeatedly shown here that any negative statement 
about any aspect of feminism, or about any feminist, is taken
as an attack on feminism as a whole (which oddly does not exist).
 
Also, again you foster stereotypes, that women are "intelligent and 
perceptive" (about social issues), and in contrast, men are not.
Feminism seems to be less about social issues than womens personal
standard of living, that is, enlightened self interest. Is this a
social issue? It does not seem to be whan a man is so accused.

>                                   -- much more than I do their
>opponents.  In fact, it's been my disappointment with the
>feminist contributions that got me into this thread.

Perhaps some of your views are unique?

>-- 
>
> )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
>( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )


Rich

payner@netcom.com
Xref: sparky soc.men:23217 alt.abortion.inequity:6710 alt.dads-rights:3489
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: adoption rules
Date: 25 Jan 1993 04:11:45 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

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

>peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>
>>>A mother +should+ be hindered from placing a child for adoption
>>>if a father has not been "identified." 
>>
>>What about births resulting from rape?  This is really adding insult
>>to injury!

>If it is so, she should have chosen an abortion.

Mighty big of you, Don, to go around telling rape victims that they
*should* undergo surgery in addition to the harm that has already 
been inflicted upon them.

-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Impressive amounts of material can be accreted in this manner.
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Privacy -- and responsibility
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 21:52:15 GMT

In article <1jhjorINN7hj@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>
>>(3) restrict his sexual life to cunnilingus only.
>
>>I disagree most emphatically with your position.  IMO, (2) and (3)
>>are unreasonable and sexist burdens, and (1) is downright illegal.
>
>In some states (3) is illegal, too.
>
>I never stated (1),(2), or (3). You mis-inferred them from what I wrote.

Funny, I recall you suggested (3) as a way to prevent pregnancy.

>-- 
>
>                                                --  Michal
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Impressive amounts of material can be accreted in this manner.


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity
From: pi101@cus.cam.ac.uk (P.M. Inman)
Subject: Re: bodily autonomy
Organization: U of Cambridge, England
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 14:55:41 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.003555.2314@rotag.mi.org>,
kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

|> In article <1jl12jINNl7o@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
|> >karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
|> >
|> >>let's take this "bodily autonomy" thing for a minute, and see where it leads
|> >>us....
|> >
|> >>Would you agree that one's mind, and its output, is under a person's control
|> >>as bodily autonomy?  That is, that the output of a mind is something which a
|> >>person has absolute control over?
|> >
|> >>Would you agree that the output of one's muscles and other body processes is 
|> >>also under a person's control as bodily autonomy.  That is, the physical 
|> >>exertion (excretion, etc) of a person is something which a person should 
|> >>have absolute control over?
|> >
|> >The mind itself, yes.  The body itself, yes.  The output, no.
|> >This runs into issues of property rights, with which I am largely unfamiliar.
|> 
|> Is it a _general_ tendency of yours to trample all over things which you don't 
|> understand?
|> 
|> Learn what an "arbitrary deprivation of property" is, Michal, or an "excessive
|> fine", and how those things violate our Constitution...
|> 
|> 								- Kevin

I'm not sure who started this thread, but surely "bodily autonomy", i.e. "I
own my body", is about the only "right" to which an individual can lay claim.
That entails the right to use one's body for thought, survival and
recreation, but only on one's own property, or with the consent of the owner
of someone else's.  Presumably one has to be out of sight, ear- and nose-shot
too.  All other rights (human, women's, men's, parents', foetuses',
children's, nations') all require the consent of someone else.  That may even
deny them the status of rights.  They become claims and obligations.

I daresay someone could construct a whole philosophical system from the right
to bodily autonomy alone.  Would "leave me alone" be a legitimate assertion
of that right?  What about "don't do that in my sight"?

The trouble is, such an experiment would never get started, since the
assertion of one's right to bodily autonomy seems to cause enormous offence
in other people. 
-- 
Philip Inman.............................e-mail: pi101@cus.cam.ac.uk
Open Systems Development Programme........JANET: pi101@uk.ac.cam.cus
Cambridge University Computer Laboratory....tel: [+44 (int); 0 (UK)] 223-335442
Cambridge, England CB2 3QG..................fax: [+44 (int); 0 (UK)] 223-334679
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.child-support,soc.culture.british
From: garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod)
Subject: Re: Reporting requirements for un-married mothers
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 12:25:54 GMT

In article <74120@cup.portal.com>, steward@cup.portal.com (John Joseph Deltuvia) writes:
> 
> In the USA, CP's applying for Aid to Families with Dependent Children
> (welfare for you non-politically-correct folks :) ) must disclose the
> names of the assumed NCP's of the child(ren) or face a sanction for
> "non-cooperation".  The sanction is the reduction of the welfare grant
> by approximately 1/3.  Waivers are granted for "good cause", such as
> molestation accusations and the like.
> 
> There is a carrot as well as a stick.  If an order is entered against
> the NCP and the NCP pays, the grant is increased by up to $50/month.
> (That's total, not $50 per child).

John is perfectly correct in stating that the first $50 of AFDC goes
to the CP. (That is a federal regulation.)  He is not correct in
stating that there is a requirement (and a sanction for failure) that
the CP name the NCP.  While it is true in a few states by state
regulation that a CP is asked to name the NCP, as of fall 1991 when
I researched state statutes and regulations IT WAS NOT REQUIRED OF and
THERE WAS NO PENALTY FOR the mother to name the father in most of the
jurisdictions.  (51 or 52 out 54 had no penalty for not naming.)

     Just over 60%  (1.82 million out of 3.01 million in 1989) of
single un-married mothers DO NOT HAVE ANY CHILD SUPPORT ORDER against
the father, despite the carrot of $50.
There is no stick.  I personally think there should be.  There has
been in most of the european countries for several years now.

David Garrod

Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women