HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood)
Subject: Re: Remote (Taxpayer) Wallets
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 8 Sep 92 12:10:57 CDT

In article <1992Sep7.195138.3944@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>
>The money is not coming to the woman for her use, it's to help support
>the child.   You seem to have ignored this in your post.
>
  The social security administration (Federal Govt.) requires that death
benefits for minors payed to guardians or parent must be accountable. 
Food stamps can not buy crack from a law abiding grocer. 

 NO STATE requires child support payments (excessive in my opinion)
to be accountable. Not only do I want to know where MY (daddy) money
goes, it would be in the BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILDREN also. 


 You also quoted someone who wrote "life doesn't guarentee fairness". 

Does that mean it only applies to Non-custodial fathers?
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: What is it that the men want?
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com
Date: 8 Sep 92 10:52:50 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Electronic Data Systems, Unigraphics Division, Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: rivero

In article <1992Sep5.005426.18704@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek) writes:
> I think Seinfeld once said something like:
> "Women know what men want.  Men know what men want.  What do men want?
>  We want women!"






I want a bigger computer!  :)


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com  Middle-Aged Mutant Ninja Animator   |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|                    When 911 won't work,  .357 will!                    |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
From: slarsen@schumann.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen)
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 14:27:11 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.183701.12194@ll.mit.edu> yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) writes:
>In article <1992Sep14.161256.28242@news.nd.edu> slarsen@monet.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep11.233552.8746@u.washington.edu> hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress) writes:
>>>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?
>>
>>Pick on someone else, Mr. EuStress.  I'm too busy earning a 
>>living and supporting my child.
>>
>
>	You've got enough time to read news.........  -;(

I always have time for the words and wisdom of intelligent 
writing and information exchange.  And I know who engages 
in it.  So, yes, I have the time to read news...... after 
I condense it.

Sue Larsen
slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu
From: hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress)
Subject: I'm NOT your "family values" slave
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 22:15:43 GMT

Katie wrote
>But you *STILL* are *assuming* that *someone* other than you will take
>responsibility for the child.  I'm asking, what if absolutely no one, 
>not you, not the biological mother, not the church, not foster parents,
>not hospitals, not orphanages, not any organization supported by the 
>tax dollars and court decisions you hate so much, in short *NO ONE*,
>would take responsibility for that child?  Whose bottom line 
>responsibility is it?

   I'd love to take the kids.
   But this is not ever going to happen
   -- you forgot grandparents in your list.

>It's yours, Mr. EuStress.

   NOT you -- NOT the government --
   NOT biology -- NO ONE can
   declare someone to be a parent --
   ONLY THE INDIVIDUAL can declare 
   himself as a parent.

   Remove from your mind the idea of some
   male being your financial slave (daddy).

> you take advantage of many valuable services the system provides, 
> not the least of which is some support for your child.  

   Neither I nor my biological children have ever 
   received welfare of any kind.  I don't advocate
   the system -- I advocate change to the system.

>You bought into the system when you had sex.

   Are you anti-choice (pro-life)?

> Like it or not, any time you, a
> male, fornicate with a female, 

    "fornicate"? You're sick.  You are the lowest
    form of toxic slime.  I will not be
    you "family values" slave.
Xref: sparky soc.men:16467 soc.women:16634
From: kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts)
Subject: Re: Male bashing in other newsgroups
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 15:49:00 GMT

In <robert.716165894@labyrinth> robert@informix.com (Robert Coleman) writes:

>kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts) writes:

>>I think it is a pretty sad person who can't enjoy this.

>	I think it is a pretty *aware* person who can't enjoy this.

An aware person should be able to maintain perspective.

Ken
Xref: sparky soc.men:16353 soc.women:16515
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Molly Yard, hyenas and lions
From: <RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Saturday, 12 Sep 1992 11:44:01 EDT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center



-From: ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic)
-Subject: Re: Molly Yard, hyenas and lions
-
-RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET writes:
->
->    In 1989, after  the Webster decision,  Molly Yard, visibly  upset, said
->    "sixteen years ago, the women  of America sent a message...".   Now the
->    important event that  took place sixteen  years earlier, was  the Roe v
->    Wade decision, which was a decision by  nine MEN. It was NOT in fact  a
->    message from the women of America  at all, many of whom are  opposed to
-(...)
-
-I think she was referring to - Norma McCorvey (?) (Jane Roe),
-whose case it was, and allowing her to stand for women in general.

   Thank you for the explanation.  But we cannot take the actions of one
woman to be a message from the women of America any more than we can take
a statement by Mike Tyson or Bobby Fisher to be a message from `the men of
America'.  The real action was taken by nine men on the S.C. and we hava right
to ask about Molly Yard's motives in distorting reality.  It reminds me of
the situation of Bill Baird who was one of the first proponents of
reproductive freedom for women but he had to be shunted aside, again for
the sake of the same kind of distortion.  The OP-Ed article today `women of
Russia Unite' in NY Times is not all that different from a call which was
no doubt issued some months ago:  `Serbians Unite'.  Such `uniting' can be
a very destructive force, even though people who call for it think they
are being idealistic.

Rohit Parikh
Xref: sparky soc.men:16115 soc.women:16301
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 13:10:09 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.210250.8262@gdr.bath.ac.uk> chpetk@gdr.bath.ac.uk (Toby Kelsey) writes:
>In article <1992Sep9.161039.23506@news.nd.edu> slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:
>	[...]
>>Your parenthetical remarks present a very thorny situation.  In fact, I 
>>think it comes up more often than a lot of folks would guess.  I personally
>>am aware of at least two women who gave birth without notifying the fathers.
>	[...]
>>But this brings up what I consider fundamental ethical problems: does 
>>the child have a right to know her/his father?  Does the father have a right
>>to know (or be aware of) his biological children?  
>

[...]
>But having parents to care for it and spend time with it is
>far more important for a child's upbringing and mental
>health that having an extra source of income.  Therefore
>logically there should be far greater penalties for
>preventing access to the parents (including not telling
>them about the child) than for failing to pay child support.
>
>If you think fathers have rights in respect of their children,
>then the right to know they exist must be one of the most basic.


Hear, hear!  But having tried to argue just the simple idea of
notifying +husbands+ +after+ abortion (based on rights/responsibilities
that the +state+ assigns to husbands), I bet this idea is similarly
so radical and "anti-female-privacy" that it could never fly, politically.

"We can't notify the father, he might be a deadbeat criminal
who would immediately force his way into the woman's life and
threaten her and the child.  Look at these statistics here, see 
how many unwed fathers are violent to their families?  Don't you
want to protect these women and children?  Doesn't a woman have a
right to choose?"

[...]
>>  These children could make claims against the father's estate, for 
>>example.
>
>My gast is truly flabbered.  Of all the reasons I would want to know
>my children, this is about number 2,592,734th on the list.

Equally confused,

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
From: stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Remote (Taxpayer) Wallets
Date: 8 Sep 92 14:54:46 GMT
Distribution: na

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.

Ahhhhhh...here we see it. Biology favors women. Biology is right. When
biology favors men (say, dock workers where physical strength is a plus)
we have to do *something* about it.

Curious.

K'Char
Xref: sparky soc.men:16171 alt.abortion.inequity:3650
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Date: 9 Sep 92 17:19:50 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: The Scorpions Nest

In article <1992Sep9.133536.26878@zooid.guild.org> 
Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:

>Ah, but would you consider women who have had abortions to be "deadbeat moms"?

NO.
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
From: ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic)
Subject: Re: Molly Yard, hyenas and lions
Organization: TRW Financial Systems
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 18:43:02 GMT

<RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
>
>-From: ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic)
>-I think she was referring to - Norma McCorvey (?) (Jane Roe),
>-whose case it was, and allowing her to stand for women in general.
>
>   Thank you for the explanation.  But we cannot take the actions of one
>woman to be a message from the women of America any more than we can take
>...

Again, let's say that her message is intended for women. I'm sure some of
the anti-abortion women share your attitude - how dare she claim to speak
for me?

It's a call to empowerment. So let me lay my throat open on this one, and
say if she's bending the rules of rhetoric, I'm on her side. How strange
to admit that I abandon the 'fairness' doctrine and acknowledge her 'error'
for its intention (I forgive that mechanism here), but when George Bush
says "and I know we all want to win the war on drugs", I see him as an
awful hypocrite. Seems to have to do with whether I ally myself with their
politics. Curious. Corrupt. And I can live with it.
Xref: sparky soc.men:16466 soc.women:16633
From: robert@informix.com (Robert Coleman)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Molly Yard, hyenas and lions
Date: 15 Sep 92 17:15:10 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic) writes:

><RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
>>
>>-From: ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic)
>>-I think she was referring to - Norma McCorvey (?) (Jane Roe),
>>-whose case it was, and allowing her to stand for women in general.
>>
>>   Thank you for the explanation.  But we cannot take the actions of one
>>woman to be a message from the women of America any more than we can take
>>...

>Again, let's say that her message is intended for women. I'm sure some of
>the anti-abortion women share your attitude - how dare she claim to speak
>for me?

>It's a call to empowerment. So let me lay my throat open on this one, and
>say if she's bending the rules of rhetoric, I'm on her side. How strange
>to admit that I abandon the 'fairness' doctrine and acknowledge her 'error'
>for its intention (I forgive that mechanism here), but when George Bush
>says "and I know we all want to win the war on drugs", I see him as an
>awful hypocrite. Seems to have to do with whether I ally myself with their
>politics. Curious. Corrupt. And I can live with it.

	Fine.  Let me speak for all men everywhere, including you, in stating
that someone implying they speak for others without their permission is wrong.

:-)

Robert C.
-- 
----------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: My company has not yet seen fit to
	    elect me as spokesperson. Hmmpf.
Xref: sparky soc.men:16322 soc.women:16480
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: anger
Date: 11 Sep 92 16:03:03 GMT
Reply-To: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <1992Sep10.211522.5711@adobe.com> kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall) writes:
> [ the only problem is that men can't deal with their anger ]

	It's good to know that there's no injustice in this world and
that all we poor males need to do is learn to deal with our repressed
emotions properly.  That's a hell of a lot easier than making sure that
every person is treated as a valuable human being with important needs
and inalienable rights.  <whew>  And here I was afraid that there was something
fundamentally wrong with our society.

	There _is_ something fundamentally wrong with this header, though.
Can anyone tell me what it is?
								W.rat
Xref: sparky soc.men:16281 soc.women:16447 alt.child-support:3130
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: EuStress Has Trouble With Words
Date: 11 Sep 92 00:35:23 GMT
Organization: Wright State University

In article <1992Sep9.200812.21258@ultb.isc.rit.edu>, kls4344@ritvax.isc.rit.edu (Person in flux) writes:
> In article <1992Sep8.223400.19014@u.washington.edu>, 
> hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress) writes:
> 
> [list of "people waiting in line to care for the kids" deleted]
> 
> But you *STILL* are *assuming* that *someone* other than you will take
> responsibility for the child.  I'm asking, what if absolutely no one, not you,
> not the biological mother, not the church, not foster parents, not hospitals,
> not orphanages, not any organization supported by the tax dollars and court
> decisions you hate so much, in short *NO ONE*, would take responsibility for
> that child?  Whose bottom line responsibility is it?
> 
> It's yours, Mr. EuStress.  And it's your sex partner's.  You were half of the
> union that conceived that child and brought it into the world.  You rail and
> rant about "the system", and you tell us to stop supporting it with taxes, and
> yet you take advantage of many valuable services the system provides, not the
> least of which is some support for your child.  
> 
> You bought into the system when you had sex.  Like it or not, any time you, a
> male, fornicate with a female, both of you run the risk of pregnancy and the
> responsibilities incurred therefrom.  That child did *NOT* ask to be born. 
> You, rightly or wrongly, brought him into the world, and *YOU* are responsible
> for taking care of him.
> 
> Now, if you're still reading this far, I want to remark that I have absolutely
> no problem with your wish to terminate fatherhood if you've made arrangements
> to have your child supported.  You seem to have done that.  Good for you.
> 
> My "problem" with your comments is your total disregard, as you express
> yourself, for your responsibilities wrt your offspring.  You refuse to *admit*
> that you ever had any kind of responsibility, and I cannot respect that.  I 
> respect anyone who brings a child into the world and then takes responsibility
> for having that child supported, whether directly or through the many other
> avenues available.  
> 
> Katie

To make it even worse, I seem to get the idea there are more than one child
involved.  Seems mr eustress was 'raped' a couple of times.

Sue
Xref: sparky soc.men:16195 alt.feminism:911 alt.censorship:7409
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Dworkin...
Date: 9 Sep 92 21:19:24 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

>;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.

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?
From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Father Notification Reconsidered
Date: 5 Sep 1992 15:20:42 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <715627023@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:
>In article <1882qoINNi2s@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com 
>(Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>(a sarcastic comment)
>All of that from that anti choice-for-men Adrienne Regard.

Hillel, you are full of shit.  Absolutely.  And, ad naseaum, you are also
incorrect.

However, to the rest of you, I do apologize for not trimming the newsgroups
lines, and will keep an eye on it in the future.

(Hillel's bullshit, deleted).

Adrienne Regard
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Is sexual freedom a good thing? (Was Re: Right To Not Support)
Date: 9 Sep 92 03:26:36 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

In article <1992Sep8.154447.1@mdcbbs.com> rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:

>  These days, the "coloring book" had been replaced by the afternoon TV
>show, and while the extremists are too extreme to be taken seriously, the
>overall effect has been to create a socially acceptible impression that,
........................................................................
>5. Men are biologically incapable of the same compassion and empathy
>	that women are.

Note that there are many more men who are for "choice for women" 
than women who are for "choice for men."

I wonder what that says about women's ability for empathy...
(Probably reduced by the cultural brain-wash against men.)
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: chapin@cbnewsc.cb.att.com ( Tom Chapin )
Subject: Re: Adults, Children and sex
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 18:44:30 GMT

Dan O'Connell writes:
>		children of a certain age are INCAPABLE
>of giving consent to a sexual act with a much older adult.
>
>This is the central point at which your argument breaks
>down and one that has not been and will not be successfully
>rebutted.

The only arguments which are non-falsifiable are those which
are based on religious faith rather than fact.  Which religion
do you wish to provide us with our legal system, and how do
you reconcile this with the First Amendment's separation of
church and state?  Otherwise, NO argument is safe from rebuttal.

If you claim that "children of a certain age are INCAPABLE 
of giving consent" to any acts, then you must be prepared to
state just what that age is (presumably with legal accuracy),
and state what criteria you used to make your determination.

At present, the age of legal consent ranges from eighteen to
as low as twelve or thirteen in some southern states.  Are
they all correct simultaneously?  Do the children in some states
mature more quickly than in others?  If a child's parents move
from a northern state move to a southern state, does their
passage of the state line somehow affect the child's maturity level?

My reading of those who have been posting on this issue is that
even those who are highly disturbed by the possibility of young
children engaging in sex still feel that eighteen is likely not
a very realistic age.  In that case, it is disingenuous of them
to claim that it is the burden of others to provide an alternative
age when they themselves disagree with the standard.

Again, I feel age is an inappropriate criterion which is likely to
cause more problems than it solves, and we should do some hard work
for a change instead of looking for quick and easy answers, and we
should come up with real indicators of what defines consent and
what defines coercion.

-- 
	     tom chapin                tjc@hrcce.att.com
From: cook@dollar.crd.ge.com (Cathi Cook)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: "A Feminist" (was Re: Barbara H.)
Date: 4 Sep 92 23:03:32 GMT
Reply-To: cook@dollar.crd.ge.com (Cathi Cook)
Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center

In article <715548410@lear.cs.duke.edu>, gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel
Gazit) writes:
|>In article <1992Sep2.223201.24322@crd.ge.com> 
|>cook@dollar.crd.ge.com (Cathi Cook) writes:
|>
|>>Just HOW are you guys defining "a feminist"?
|>
|>If someone defines hirself as a feminism then sie is a feminist.

If someone identifies themselves as a feminism then they are
illiterate.

But that's a good working definition.  Now let's see if that's
the definition Rivero was using.

|>>defined as "a woman who says something I don't like".  Over and
|>>over I see these anonymous "a feminist"s taking positions that all
|>>the feminists _I_ know wouldn't consider reasonable even if they
|>>had just had a fifth of tequila.  
|>
|>But did they vote for candidates who support those positions?

Gosh, I really don't know.  I really don't make a habit of
following my friends into the voting booth.  You know, "secret
ballot" and all that stuff.

|>Did they vote for liberal/feminist candidates that make their best
|>to preserve women's extra rights in custody, no-choice-for-men,
|>affirmative action quotas, fight against porno,
|>support men only registration for draft, etc.?

I admit, you've got me stumped on this one.  I just don't know
who my friends voted for.

|>(Do they even *know* that Johnson sent 500,000 men Vietnam,
|>Nixon stopped the draft and Carter started a men-only
|>registration for draft?  Just wondering...)
                      
Again, I'm stumped.  I can tell you that _I_ was quite aware
of these things, however.  Perhaps there's a question you'd
like to ask me?  This does seem awfully important to you.

                    -rocker
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Men's Issues Newsbrie
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 22:56:27 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.132650.3015@tfs.com> ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic) writes:
)So sorry. I am a reductionist; I like to prune worthless trees.
)Will we like to begin living in a society sufficiently healthy,
)that we don't have to niggle over worthless issues as what does
)or does not constitute petty rape (which is of course rape nonetheless?)
)If he or she says, before the fact, do NOT, and you do, it is rape.
)If he or she says, after the fact, it was rape, it was not rape.
)Okay?
)And if they change their mind after the fact - then it is rape of those
)accused of rape, and decidely unethical.
)
)I'd like to hear how we have gotten to where every fucking thing we do,
)gets analysed to damn bits. People no longer seem to realize their ethics
)do not depend upon an external consensus, and this bothers me greatly.
)
)Look for the simpler solutions, PLEASE.

Here's a simple solution:

Keep the current laws that define rape as involving the use of force,
threats, or taking advantage of someone UNABLE to consent, rather than
attempting to define it in terms of 'penetration'.

A crime that does NOT involve violence or force but merely 'penetration
without permission', doesn't seem to me to be a good canidate for the stiff
penalties rape currently has.  I'm not sure how much it really needs to or
can be regulated by law, actually.  So far I don't like any of the proposals
I've heard for change.

It *is* harder to get simpler than not changing the status quo! :-)

Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support