HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: mandatory service
Date: 16 Aug 92 20:43:24 GMT
Followup-To: soc.men,soc.women
Organization: Murasami Labs

shomer@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us wrote:

> joining the military for the G.I. Bill). Men have plenty of 
> privilege; why should we resent one of the few that women have?

Because that mail privilege has been systematically assaulted and
dismantled in the name of equality and progress. If we are to 
have equality and progress, then things have to be determined
irregardless of the maleness/femaleness of the person(s) involved.

One of the bastions of female privilege is in the custody of their
children, simply because of their sex. It's neither fair, nor just,
but I suppose in your scheme of things, it's ok.

K'Char
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
Newsgroups: soc.men

	
	BRAVO!

	Wonderful examples!           

	There are far too many people walking around with JUSTIFICATIONS
	for their rotten behavior, and their twisted reasoning...

	Thanks for sharing your insights....

	-Mike-
From: stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: mandatory service
Date: 17 Aug 92 23:45:53 GMT
Followup-To: soc.men,soc.women
Organization: Murasami Labs

Seth Breidbart wrote:
 
> I can join a combat group in the Army.  I can join a combat group in
> the Navy.  I can join a combat group in the Air Force.   There, that's
> three.

Not necessarily. I have corrected vision, and as such, would most likely
never see combat if I were in the AF. I could be part of base security,
but if base security is regularly getting into firefights, then it's
time for the army or marines to clean up the neighborhood. 

Nice try, but try again.

K'Char
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
From: dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dave Eisen)
Subject: Re: mandatory service
Organization: Sequoia Peripherals, Inc.
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 16:55:01 GMT

In article <4069@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us> shomer@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us writes:
>the mother in custody. It's funny: when I talk about custody issues with 
>women, they're always asking "what's good for the kid?" 

I'd be *far* more impressed with this if they didn't assume
that "what's best for the kid" is the same as whatever was
best for the mother. Come back when more than a handful of
women think that giving the father custody and sending him
child support payments is in the best interest of the kid.
Until then, no matter how sincere he woman's belief that her 
child's best interests would be served by her getting custody
and child support, I really can't take any statements that
she is acting in the best interests of her child all that
seriously.

>Men seem more concerned with their property rights over the kid. 

I think you are focussing too much on the way men and women
express themselves and not enough on how they behave. 

Men want access to their children both because they like having
them around and because they think their child is better off
having them around. Women want it for the same reasons. 

The fact that women justify their desire to have custody primarily
on the basis that it is better for the child and that men justify 
their desire primarily on their right to have custody says more 
about the methods men and women use to try to get what they want 
than it says about who would make a better parent.



-- 
Dave Eisen    dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU   Sequoia Peripherals: (415) 967-5644
          	Some of my best friends are men.
        --- Lisa Nee in "American Women Deserve a Tax Break."
From: jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Woody Allen Charged With Molesting his Kids in Custody Battle
Date: 20 Aug 92 01:41:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Aug20.014104.21456
Reply-To: jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress)
Organization: University of Washington

Barrie Trinkle writes
> I don't understand why the media persists in calling it an "affair" (unless
> either Woody or the woman is legally married, but they haven't said that).
> Why not "relationship"?  Are they just trying to make it sound sleazy?

   Yes they *ARE* "trying to make it sound sleazy".
   Woody and the woman are neither married nor living together.
   She has many (8?) children whom ONLY she adopted.
From: stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Some Politically Incorrect questions
Date: 15 Aug 92 15:11:54 GMT
Followup-To: soc.men
Distribution: na
Organization: Murasami Labs

Loren I. Petrich wrote:

> In article <1992Aug14.092235.1@mdcbbs.com> rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:

> >  Seems like getting to stay home and play with the kids wasn't
> >the unhealthy and streeful horror the feminists made it out to be.
> 	Then why don't you become a househusband, if being a
> house-spouse is such an elixir of life.

Because a lot of women still, somewhere, have the idea of having her man
support her? And having a househusband is *not* in their game plan? Not
to mention the fact it would be terrible if the courts had to award *him*
custody and *alimony*.

K'Char
From: charleen@ADS.COM (Charleen Bunjiovianna)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Woody Allen Charged With Molesting his Kids in Custody Battle
Date: 19 Aug 92 21:14:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: ads.1992Aug19.211458.17292
Organization: The Original Estrogen-Crazed Lust Bunnies

In article <1992Aug19.164510.24712@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
>Woody Allen said Tuesday that he was falseley accused of molesting his two
>youngest children in a cheme concoted by his ex-lover, Mia Farrow,
>to retain custody of the kids.
>
>Allen, 56, filed a lawsuit against Farrow last week demanding custody of
>their three children.

Uh, he's also admitted that he's having an affair with Farrow's (what,
18-year-old?) adopted daughter, which is likely to blow his custody suit
right out of the water, according to some sources.

Charleen
--
Sudafed:  Comes in regular non-fatal and now, new fatal!
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Hating Men with Full Force
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 15:47:47 GMT

In article <Bt9r8A.3MB@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dmcanzi@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi) writes:
)In article <Bm8RPB1w164w@cellar.org> revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano) writes:
)>Robert Sheaffer writes:
)[..omitted..]
)>     You know, I don't see the same sort of outrage from Sheaffer over
)
)I went back to Sheaffer's article and reread it, figuring I must have
)somehow missed his expressions of outrage the first time I read it.
)Nope.  They aren't there.

Hmmm.  Well, *obviously* he must then approve of that woman's attitude!

:-) :-) :-) :-)

Xref: sparky soc.men:15232 soc.women:15509
From: revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Better Late than Never
Date: 20 Aug 92 01:37:46 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system


 
 
     A funny thing occurred to me the other day, and I'm kicking
myself for not thinking of it months ago.
 
     Let's really consider one of Sheaffer's points against feminism;
the claim that, because of their biology, women are far less
aggressive and dominating than men are-- therefore, men will probably
always hold political power, and women's attempts to rectify this are
doomed to failure. Of course, this state of affairs arose out of
natural selection-- aggressive men were needed to protect the
childbearers and go get food while they women took care of the kids.
Male aggressiveness was a strategy for survival, and the fact that it
exists is proof that it works. At least, that's the gist of what he's
been arguing so far.
 
     But needless to say, we're no longer competing against other
animals in the Olduvai Gorge anymore. And anyone with a grain of sense
will understand that what constitutes a successful strategy depends on
the environment one exists in. For example, if trees have light-
colored bark, light-colored moths will be eaten less frequently by
predators because of natural camoflage. But if the tree barks change
color-- as it did in England, thanks to industrial pollution-- then
darker moths will be favored. I'm sure most of us have read about this
somewhat famous study.
 
     Right now, we exist in an environment where two nations have the
capability of wiping out life on Earth within hours-- and several
other nations have the capability of _provoking_ the major powers into
this action. Add to this the tantalizing mix of chemical-biological
warfare, within the grasp of nearly any industrial country.
 
     So, if Sheaffer's right, and men are more aggressive, and tend to
gain power and dominance over others more often, then we've got a
strategy that's _more_ likely to get us _all_ killed. If Sheaffer's 
right about men and aggression, maybe it'd make better sense to keep
men the hell _out_ of power.

     Or, maybe Sheaffer's just full of it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian "Rev. P-K" Siano                                  revpk@cellar.org
"What? They have BIGGER DICKS?! _BOMB THEM!!!!_"
                        Our Leaders, paraphrased by George Carlin
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts)
Subject: Re: Ann Landers Sexual Harassment article
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 18:51:56 GMT

In <5514@transfer.stratus.com> dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber) writes:

> Ann Landers writes:
>>   Dear Mr. Hayward:  These laws CAN protect men, but only if men are
>> willing to follow through in court.

>Don't you just love it?  Imagine a man saying "Rape laws CAN protect women,
>but only if women are willing to follow through in court".  Sigh.

But she is right.  So many of these poorly designed S.H. policies are in
effect because people were unwilling to look after their own self-interests.
When people are unwilling to take any risks to protect themselves, they
should expect others to do it for them.

Ken
Xref: sparky soc.men:15294 soc.women:15568
From: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.censorship,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Brian Siano Posts Private E-Mail (was: Robert Sheaffer's Loyalty T
Date: 20 Aug 92 20:33:37 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: na
Reply-To: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   

In article <92230.223226SML108@psuvm.psu.edu>, SML108@psuvm.psu.edu writes...
>In article <d19m39k.sheaffer@netcom.com>, sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
>says:
>>
>>If anyone did not yet realize that Mr. Brian Siano, the reverend P.C.,
>>is a person of very low integrity, this blatant posting of the private
>>E-mail I sent him should remove all doubt about that. etc blah blah blah...
> 
>You know, you have occasionally posted some very good skeptical articles,
>but if you really believe that annoying flame material should be kept private,
>perhaps you should pick up your toys and go home...  Stop being such a
>sphincter boy or you're going to give Uri Geller a good name...

Sheaffer surely doesn't need *me* to support him, but I will do it anyway.
I think that posting his private E-mail was a disgusting ploy.  If anyone
ever posted something that I had sent privately without asking my 
permission I would be just as ticked off.  

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
				had been definitely settled, I think I would
				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: jbf@wts.com (Jens B. Fiederer)
Subject: Re: *THAT* Question!
Organization: Wegmans Transaction Services
Distribution: soc.men
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 01:35:08 GMT

In article <713514284@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>rcrawfor@nyx.cs.du.edu (Ron Crawford) writes:
>
>>   "Can you take a girl home, fuck her brains out, and say goodbye to
>>her in the morning?"
>
I believe I could, in theory, but considering how annoyed my wife would be,
it would not be a good idea...

Jens
Xref: sparky soc.men:15261 soc.women:15535 alt.child-support:2816 alt.dads-rights:2036
From: jrr@nsc.nsc.com (Jerry Roe)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Paul Vixie
Date: 20 Aug 92 17:53:39 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: National Semiconductor, Santa Clara

In article <1992Aug19.154427.25994@meaddata.com> king@meaddata.com (Mike King) writes:
>
...
>
>The voluntary absence of a parent from a childs life has ALREADY
>harmed the child.  By forcing these voluntarily absent parents to
>financially support their children at least assures that the children
>will have enough to eat.

I'm not sure whether you're talking about the case where "real" parents
(those who planned or agreed to have children) are absent - the
stereotypical "deadbeats" - or whether you mean those fathers who have
been unlucky enough to be "forced" to be fathers by a woman who either
lied about her ability to have kids, said she'd have an abortion if she
got pregnant and then didn't do so, or similar.

If you're talking about the first case, it's necessary to remember that
most of those "voluntarily" absent parents (almost always fathers) are
not necessarily voluntarily absent.  In many, many cases they're absent
because their ex - who wins custody by default because she's the mother -
*enforces* their absence by denying court-ordered access to the kids and
never being penalized for it.  THAT harms the kids, and the courts not
only don't do anything about it, they in fact make it possible.

In almost all posts I read which talk about how the children are harmed
by "absent" parents, I never see any mention about the harm done by a
woman who exercises absolute control over a child's destiny by choosing
to have one without the (usually non-married) father's agreement and
WITHOUT considering her ability to provide for that child - only looking
at "what can I get out of this guy to support MY child", emphasis intended.

Which leads into my second-case scenario, above, which is a topic that
I and many others have discussed in numerous other posts, and which I
won't get into here except to say that any person who chooses to bring
a child into the world ought to *fully* consider the ramifications of
that decision.  And if there's serious doubt about your own ability to
support that child adequately, and you don't have the other parent's
agreement in advance to support that child, then you'd better think
twice.

>What are you supposed to say to a child you don't want.  Have a nice
>life?

What should you say to a child you chose to bring into the world on
your own, but can't support, and depend on forcing someone else
who didn't agree to bring the child into the world, to support?  


Jerry Roe		National Congress for Men
			FREE
			National Council for Children's Rights
jrr@nsc.nsc.com		...!{sun,pyramid,decwrl)!nsc!jrr
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Woody Allen Charged With Molesting his Kids in Custody Battle
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 15:59:24 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.211458.17292@ads.com> charleen@ADS.COM (Charleen Bunjiovianna) writes:
)In article <1992Aug19.164510.24712@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
)>Woody Allen said Tuesday that he was falseley accused of molesting his two
)>youngest children in a cheme concoted by his ex-lover, Mia Farrow,
)>to retain custody of the kids.
)>
)>Allen, 56, filed a lawsuit against Farrow last week demanding custody of
)>their three children.
)
)Uh, he's also admitted that he's having an affair with Farrow's (what,
)18-year-old?) adopted daughter, which is likely to blow his custody suit
)right out of the water, according to some sources.

I dunno.  He's not married to Mia Farrow either, apparently.  (And she's
not married to him, natch.).  The adopted daughter is 21 according to the
article, BTW.

"Allen said:  The one thing I have been guilty of is falling in love with
Miss Farrow's adult daughter at the end of our own years together and,
painful as that might be, I and certainly the children do not deserve this
form of retribution." (Chicago Tribune)
From: tjehl@sedona.intel.Com (Timothy Jehl)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Woody Allen Charged With Molesting his Kids in Custody Battle
Date: 19 Aug 92 22:54:21 GMT
Reply-To: tjehl@sedona.intel.com
Organization: Intel Corporation.
Originator: tjehl@mirage


In article <1992Aug19.211458.17292@ads.com>, charleen@ADS.COM (Charleen Bunjiovianna) writes:
|> 
|> Uh, he's also admitted that he's having an affair with Farrow's (what,
|> 18-year-old?) adopted daughter, which is likely to blow his custody suit
|> right out of the water, according to some sources.
|> 
   I believe she is 21, but don't see what difference her age is, so long
as she has reached her majority.  I also don't see what the woman's
relationship to Farrow has to do with the custody suit.
   I can, however, see a possible link between this relationship and the
possibility that Farrow has made purely vindictive allegations.
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
From: brunner@telebit.com (Eric Brunner)
Subject: Re: It isn't slavery
Followup-To: alt.flame
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 19:42:34 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.155337.5552@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
>
>Hmm.  Well, if you don't want soc.* input, why are you xposting here?
>

This shouldn't be so terribly hard to figure out Bronis. Every so often
some creative person cross-posts _into_ a.c-s with rather noisy effect.
It would be _greatly_ appreciated by a.c-s regulars if there were less
of this generosity. Don't you think that a plea for fewer kneejerk follow
up cross-posts should be cross-posted? 

Note the follow-up.
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: escr@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (elizabeth)
Subject: Opinions wanted on Faludi's _Backlash_
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:30:56 GMT


I just finished reading Susan Faludi's BACKLASH and would like to know
what you all thought of it...does it make sense or is it a bunch of crap?
I'm not going to post my own opinions yet so as not to bias the replys
I get :).

If this has already made the rounds I humbly apologize, and would ask
someone to direct me to somewhere I can catch up on the subject or e-mail
me instead of posting...

thanks in advance..
elizabeth

P.S. Just so you know, I've cross-posted to soc.women and soc.men
so I can get both sides...
Xref: sparky soc.men:14890 soc.women:15168 misc.legal:15959 alt.child-support:2730
From: falk@peregrine.Sun.COM (Ed Falk)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Date: 12 Aug 1992 20:08:17 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: peregrine

In article <l8c019INNbom@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> falk@rembrandt.Sun.COM (Ed Falk) writes:
>
>????  The man in that case *lost* as I recall.

I stand corrected; he won on appeal, I'm told.

		-ed falk, sun microsystems
		 sun!falk, falk@sun.com
	terrorist, cryptography, DES, drugs, cipher, secret, decode,
	DSS, FBI, NSA, CIA, NRO, SDI, communist, proletariat.
From: jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Woody Allen Charged With Molesting his Kids in Custody Battle
Date: 19 Aug 92 23:23:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Aug19.232305.17467
Reply-To: jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress)
Organization: University of Washington

Charleen Bunjiovianna writes
> Uh, he's also admitted that he's having an affair with Farrow's (what,
> 18-year-old?) adopted daughter, which is likely to blow his custody suit
> right out of the water, according to some sources.

   Woody's new lover is 21 -- not 18.
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Subject: Re: Sex Insurance
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 12:03:45 GMT

In article <u28PPB1w165w@dogear.spk.wa.us> bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick) writes:
>jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress) writes:
>->     Of course you say "nonsense!", you're a woman -- 
>->     the benefactor of injustices against men.
>-> 
>->     If the minority can be enslaved then the majority
>->     will support it.
>
>Nonsense!
>


	Nonsense!

-- 
	Alan Yasutovich
	"inquiring  (and nosey) minds WANT TO KNOW!!!"
	I can remember when "safe sex" meant having a padded headboard!!
	Tick Tock.....Tick Tock......Tick Tock .....Tick Tock......
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support
From: vixie@pa.dec.com (Paul A Vixie)
Subject: Re: Equal Male Rights
Organization: DEC Network Software Lab
	<1992Aug18.183212.29094@telebit.com> <+j_nzs#@lynx.unm.edu>
Date: 22 Aug 92 13:13:33

[bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician)]:
> Again, I don't think you understand my point.  The biological mother
> doesn't "adopt" the child.  After she gives birth, when she and the
> baby are ready to leave, the nurses take the baby out of the nursery,
> give it to her, and they both get wheeled out the door.  No lawyers,
> no courts, no nothing.
>
> Why is it that the biological father has to convince somebody to let
> him have custody of his own children?

The fact of the mother's motherhood is usually not in dispute, at least
in the hospital where the birth occurred, since various people witnessed
it.  While it's biologically possible for the birth mother to not be the
genetic mother (as in host-mother cases) this is not the usual situation
and if such a claim were made no sooner than the day of birth, I suspect
that the hospital administrators would not take it very seriously.

On the other hand the people in the hospital have only hear-say evidence
of the father's identity, since the his biologically neccessary participation
was presumably not witnessed by the hospital staff.

That's the short answer to "why does the baby just get handed to the mother?"
You can infer from this why suits to "establish parental relations" occur.

The original topic of this thread was: if a mother wanted to give a baby up
for adoption, the father would have to go to court rather than just being the
one to take the baby home from the hospital.  This is sad, but true.  In the
grand scheme of sexually-biased injustice men face in family court, this is
not a big deal -- because at least it's possible to trivially overcome it,
at least in most counties in California.  I'd suggest saving our mental efforts
here for things which are a lot stickier than this minor injustice.
--
Paul Vixie, DEC Network Systems Lab	
Palo Alto, California, USA         	"Don't be a rebel, or a conformist;
<vixie@pa.dec.com> decwrl!vixie		they're the same thing, anyway.  Find
<paul@vix.com>     vixie!paul		your own path, and stay on it."  -me
Xref: sparky soc.men:15028 soc.women:15296 soc.penpals:1726