HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: liam@durie.amigans.gen.nz (Liam Greenwood)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,soc.penpals
Subject: Re:  DANGER!!!!
Date: 19 Aug 92 22:27:48 GMT+12
Distribution: world
Organization: It's Home, really...

In article <713984707.19715@zooid.guild.org> taralee@zooid.guild.org (tara lee) writes:
> Oh my lord....
>
>           I think I'm having flashbacks.. Someone please tell me that I
>really have seen this before and that my brain is going into some sort of
>hyperdrive.
>
>          Taralee
    You really have seen that before, and your brain is going into some
sort of hyperdrive. Say, some people are _real_ easy to make happy.

(sorry, honest! It was just begging for it though...<seriously wicked grin>)

--
 Liam Greenwood ------ liam@durie.amigans.gen.nz ------ Wanganui, N.Z.
                Don't tell my Mother I'm a programmer,
              she thinks I'm a piano player in a brothel

Xref: sparky soc.men:15046 soc.women:15319
From: shomer@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: mandatory service
Summary: double standards?
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 92 23:12:43 PDT
Reply-To: shomer@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us

In article <1992Aug14.132649.29292@ncar.ucar.edu>, 
gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
> 
> km> There is no public university, anywhere in the U. S., that can't be at-
> km> tended on govt. grants and loans.
> 
>   You forget that men must be registered for the draft to receive these loans
>   and grants. I wonder how many women students would be willing to give up
>   any of these loans/grants they recieve as a form of protest against this
>   sexist policy.

Probably about as many as the number of men who refuse to walk alone at 
night, as a form of protest against rape. :-(

I really admire one friend who gave up her Federal grants and loans 
because she wouldn't sign the registration compliance form and claim
the exemption for women. That meant she had to get a job, which meant
she had to quit the basketball team, which was giving her a scholarship.
So she gave up a cushy ride through Stanford University.
I doubt there are many people quite so principled. 

I had to postpone finishing college for several years myself because I 
did not register for the draft. I was living comfortably in the 
meantime, so this was no great sacrifice. But for someone without
a good job skill, it would be. I admire those who make that 
sacrifice, but I believe people have a right to an education, and
I won't blame someone for signing the forms (or, for that matter, 
joining the military for the G.I. Bill). Men have plenty of 
privilege; why should we resent one of the few that women have?
-- 
_________________________________
Steve Homer  shomer@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.censorship
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Brian Siano Proclaims the End of Privacy (was: Robert Sheaffer Whines About "Exposure")
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 92 03:54:40 GMT

In article <c5+n4_#.sheaffer@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>In article <6Z8RPB3w164w@cellar.org> revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano) writes:
(deleted stuff)

How about the two of you taking this bitch fight to email?  I, for
one, would be extremely grateful.

Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
From: stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Tired of that subject
Date: 13 Aug 92 18:58:23 GMT
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: Murasami Labs


 Steve Novak wrote:
> > = (Hillel) writes:
> >>SN> = Steve Novak:

> >First we get a long lecture how *hard* it is for a woman to fly 
> >to another state to have an abortion.  
> 
> Wasn't me, but I'll take it up:
> 
> Let's see: a mother has a net salary of, say, $450 a month.  Where's she
> gonna get the money to fly?
> 
> When did you turn into such an insensitive elitist jerk?  Everyone in the
> country doesn't have a cushy computer job; welcome to the real world.

That's the price of doing business. If she can't afford an abortion, she 
shouldn't have sex. [the same line that is fed MEN who don't want any
child support responsibilities, BTW]

> 
> >Next we get another, even more Politically Correct, lecture about how
> >easy it is for a man to move to another country for good.

> The point, Oh Dense One, is that at any time while a woman is pregnant
> the man can get up and leave.  Doesn't HAVE to be another country.  Could
> be another town or state.  Sorry if I baffled you.  A determined man will
> NOT get caught for child support.  Even if he does, it would at least
> delay for a time financial support (not to mention emotional) for the
> woman he impregnated.

Depends of course on how easily he could pick up and move. Are all men
just a suitcase away from the next state? Hell no! Most of us have a 
paper trail 8 miles wide and 4 long. With a little work and quite a bit
of money and planning, yeah, sure I could drop out of sight. Is that
worth it? I doubt it.

And what's this about emotional support? If the guy is going to leave
her, there's NOT GOING TO BE ANY. Are you suggesting that they legislate
that, TOO?


> Is *your* point that it's the same for the pregnant woman as the man who
> impregnated her?  Open your eyes.

Hillel has never, ever, once said that. 

K'Char
Xref: sparky soc.men:14987 soc.women:15253 soc.penpals:1689
From: casmith@acs.harding.edu
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,soc.penpals
Subject: DANGER!!!!
Date: 14 Aug 92 17:34:38 GMT
Reply-To: casmith@acs.harding.edu
Organization: Harding University

I am posting this to warn the public of a great, grave danger that lies 
ahead. Bill Clinton is running for president....if he gets it we will 
be doomed to a great depression! I give this warning because I am from
Arkansas and I have seen what he is like. The press in this case is not
digging into Clintons record or life, therefore they are giving him 
glamorus reviews when he really deserves mud. You think that I am exagerating,well I'm not in the past ten years Clinton has raised Arkansas taxes by 
more than 250%, most of which is payed by middle classed Farmers! Clinton
has consistantly lied to the Arkansas public and because of a large pop.
of people with little or no education, he has gotten away with it! You
say look at his education record, well lets do. Clinton has done nothing
for the Ark. Educational process except make more paper work for teachers
and close smaller schools. I have 2 aunts that are teachers here and neither
one of them like him nor do they support him. You don't realise what Clinton
is like until you have seen him in action for a long time. I think I can 
truthfully say that Clinton would make the even a typical Used Car salesman
seem like a saint. No, I am not a Republican trying to discredit Clinton.
I am just an honest person who doesn't want to see a snake elected to
office. Thanks for your time.
                                               Craig A. Smith
Bill Clinton sells snake oil!
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Equal Male Rights
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 01:17:20 GMT

In article <708@dogear.spk.wa.us> root@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick) writes:
>In article <VIXIE.92Aug23121952@cognition.pa.dec.com> vixie@pa.dec.com (Paul A Vixie) writes:
>>
>>It is true that the strength of the "tender years doctrine" comes from the
>>presumed desirability of continuity of care after the "fourth trimester".
>>However, this is as it must be -- we cannot attack the roots of the tender
>>years doctrine by trying to remake biology and split the care of the baby
>>before it would make sense to do that.  And of course the tender-years
>>camp agrees with this and sets the date at which care can reasonably be
>>shared at three years or so; I on the other hand set it at three to six
>>MONTHS, depending on the particular baby.
>
>There is absolutely no reason why shared or single-male interraction with
>a child cannot commence at birth. I got up and fed my kids in the middle
>of the night and also during the daylight hours. No, it wasn't formula
>either. My wife was a pumper, and even if she wasn't, one of the services
>that many hospitals provide is referral to sources for breast milk.

I had night duty (bi-hourly) seven nights a week for the first three months
of my son's life, until he finally discovered darkness is for sleeping.

I find, however, that the suggestion that a man can feed and raise
a newborn often discomforts people, often even when they wholly accept 
formula-feeding by the mother.  

Might I say, there exists a whole "pro-choice" movement 
re milk vs. formula, but not unsurprisingly, the issue of 
"formula is inferior" seems to arise more when it is suggested 
that fathers can do a satisfactory job.  Namely, it is okay
for mothers to suggest [choose] formula, but watch out if 
a father claims it's good enough.

[Disclaimer: these comments were +not+ meant to include Paul Vixie,
whose opinions I don't know well enough.]

>There are more than a few dads who've become single-parents immediately
>at their child's birth --for a variety of reasons-- and these kids have
>sone well in their journey to adulthood. There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING a
>baby needs that it MUST get from it's mother.

Except that good ole' apple pie (via the blender), right?  ;^)

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Some Politically Incorrect questions
Date: 13 Aug 92 04:50:16 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Distribution: na
Organization: The Piranha Club

# Let's get the ball rolling!  Hire a wife today!

%Probably be cheaper and less trying than being married?? [1]
%1] I've never been married, so I don't know the costs.

In article <1992Aug7.201542.25763@no1home.nashvil.ingr.com> 
puter@no1home.nashvil.ingr.com (PuterDude) writes:
>And by lookin' at your comment (I noticed there was NOT a smiley),
>I would say that you don't also know of the benefits.

1) If marriage is such a bad deal for women, they why are they the
   ones who usually push in that direction?

2) If divorce is such a bad deal for women, they why are they the
   ones usually push in that direction?

3) What is a better deal for a woman, to get married and 
   divorced or to stay single?
Xref: sparky soc.men:15047 soc.women:15320
From: shomer@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: mandatory service
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 92 23:29:04 PDT
Reply-To: shomer@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us

In article <l8o6nuINNhc0@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM>, 
danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:

> [...] I think any true feminist (whatever that means) by virtue
> of gaining the same "rights" for women as for men, would
> insist on equal opportunities for women to obtain combat
> roles in the military. This necessarily implies registration
> for all. <from a previous post on another newsgroup I wrote:>

Registration for nobody is equally fair (leaving aside the 
fact that "volunteers" are essentially drafted by their poverty).

> Of course, within a few years the question may become moot.
> As it is, in the U.S. there are movements within the DOD
> (according to a 60 minutes thing I saw a couple weeks ago)
> to eliminate registration entirely. The armed services are
> already having trouble getting rid of people. With the changing
> global security picture, many fewer people are needed.

DoD has opposed registration from the start. In any case, the 
political interests that supported registration always knew it 
would make no difference in the country's ability to expand 
the military in a hurry. They wanted registration for ideological
reasons, largely to help socialize young men to be obedient to
the state and make them aware that the state had a claim 
on their body. 

> [...] My hope is that within the next 4 years, there won't be any
> selective service administration, or else it will be converted
> into a public works program, etc.

That seems very likely, but don't be surprised to find a military 
"option" in a future national youth service program.
-- 
_________________________________
Steve Homer  shomer@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Equal Male Rights
Organization: Penn State Computer Science
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 01:59:34 GMT

In article <VIXIE.92Aug22131333@cognition.pa.dec.com> vixie@pa.dec.com (Paul A Vixie) writes:
>[bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician)]:
>> Why is it that the biological father has to convince somebody to let
>> him have custody of his own children?

[Paul Vixie explains "why", followed by ...]

>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.

Could you explain "trivially overcome it"?

Is it really possible for a man to take the baby into his own house,
into his house for half the time, or even just into his arms, if the
woman objects?

Or are you saying the +legal+ consequences of not being able to
take the child into his arms are trivial to overcome?  Does this
mean that the woman's sole personal care of the baby is not taken
into account in any subsequent custody dispute?

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu           pro-pro  anti-anti  anti-pro-anti  anti-anti-pro
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 16:33:27 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.
Followup-To: soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights

In article <1992Aug6.175958.12057@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) wrote:

> That is not the case. IF the male does not wish to be a parent, he can
> get a vasectomy. Otherwise BOTH of them are responsible. Or since even
> vasectomies are not perfect, he can abstain if he does not want the
> risk of pregnancy.

So can a woman.  No Wait.....
--
Rick Eames
athos@apple.com
My opinions are my own, thank you very much!
From: stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Some Politically Incorrect questions
Date: 16 Aug 92 20:36:49 GMT
Followup-To: soc.men
Distribution: na
Organization: Murasami Labs

Jon S. Wood wrote:

>  If she won't give me fun money, I'll just cut her off and screw
> the hell out of Sally the snap on rep.
> 
> Tongue in cheek... if ya know what I mean,

Yes...but who's? Or is that "whom's"?

K'Char - budding linguist
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Hating Men with Full Force
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 17:26:40 GMT

In article <2316@unet.UUCP> linda@wendy.net.com (Linda Hill) writes:

)The point I got from Brian's post was "No wonder women hate men.  Look at what
)women have gone through at the hand's of men."  That may not be what he meant,
)but it sure hit home for me.

I think it is useful, though, to take a quick look at what men have gone
through at the hand of men (and women).  If you look at crime statistics, for
example, you'll find that men are definitely the most frequent victims
of violent crime (in the US)  by a wide margin (about 1.5x to 1), and the
victims of murder by an even larger margin (about 3X).

The real key point, though, is that hating all men (or blacks, or any members
of any particular group) because *some* of them have committed crimes is
pure bigotry.

The classic example would be to use the high crime rate of blacks as an
excuse for white people to hate them.  This is not right.

It's not right to hate men because some men commit crimes, either.
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: "Uncritical support" for the poor weak women (Was Tired of that ...)
Date: 13 Aug 92 17:28:32 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

#SN> C'mon.  Are you saying the number of single fathers is anywhere CLOSE to
#SN> the number of single mothers?  Are you really unaware that a man who
#SN> impregnates a women can just go spelunking in New Zealand, and the heck
#SN> with the woman?

%First we get a long lecture how *hard* it is for a woman to fly 
%to another state to have an abortion.  
%
%Next we get another, even more Politically Correct, lecture about how
%easy it is for a man to move to another country for good.

In article <1992Aug13.154724.1075@advtech.uswest.com> 
steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:

>Let's see: a mother has a net salary of, say, $450 a month.  Where's she
>gonna get the money to fly?

A woman has no skills, and she can work only 90 hours a month for a 
minimal wage, she can't find anyone to lend her money for a bus
ticket & abortion, and she decides to have a baby she can't support.

The feminist-liberal response to such irresponsibility?

"She will be a great mother if we will just send the FBI after the 
father and take him to the cleaners."

I wonder how many L.A. style riots are needed before even 
one liberal would try to *think* if supporting
irresponsible decisions is such a great idea...

>| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 

Hillel                                                gazit@cs.duke.edu

"Uncritical support" is a contradiction in terms.  --  Joanna Russ
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
From: Eric.Forbis@f62.n282.z1.tdkt.kksys.com (Eric Forbis)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Robert Sheaffer's Loyalt
Date: 19 Aug 92 04:45:06 GMT

On  8-16-92, Brian 'Rev P-K' Sian wrote to All:
B'>      "The very idea of demanding that I answer a test of your own
B'> devising to 'prove' my reason and my loyalty is an openly fascist
B'> conceit. It is precisely the sort of intimidation that the McCarthies,
B'> the Hitlers, the J. Edgar Hoovers and the Stalins of the world thrive

All this from the line, "I'm curious about this. Here's a little
quiz for you to take"? Reality check time, guy.

If you are going to dedicate your life to following Sheaffer around
spitting, please try to get the arguments right- particularly
Goldberg's, which I'm familiar with- before launching into fits.

Why don't you get off of Sheaffer's back for awhile and show us
what you can do on your own?
___
 X MegaMail 2.10 #0:If it works, maybe you're on to something

 * Origin: The Spare Computer 612-824-2160 (1:282/62)
Newsgroups: soc.men,misc.legal
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Financial Consequences as Slavery?
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 07:55:59 GMT

In article <BsMF4w.HHp@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>But awards of financial
>>consequences do not violate personal autonomy.
>
>Perhaps it's not as much of a violation if you can afford law school 
>or if you come from a background which allows you to get a loan,
>or your parents can help you out after you spent half your income on 
>support.  

I wouldn't know.  I'm working my way through.

>But if you don't have such options, severe financial consequences 
>(25%-60%) can quite strongly violate your personal autonomy.  
>
>A legal question: if you cause an accident and the jury awards
>$10,000,000 to the victim, does the pay schedule vary with your
>income?  Do the courts impute to you a maximal salary?

I know bankruptcy courts impute an income to a debtor trying to file
reorganization.  But my knowledge of bankruptcy is spotty, so I
can't vouch for the way they compute it.  But that's where to look
for analogues. 
-- 
             ......................................................
             ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | std disclaimers
             the university of chicago law skool, chicago, illinois
             you can't throw me to the lions -- i'm charlton heston
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: mandatory WIMPS
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 21:49:35 GMT

In article <4940@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood) writes:

)I've seen some interesting mYn at womYn's rallies on ABC World News Tonight
)crying about how awful men are.  They have scruffy beards and quivering lips
)and would gladly have a sex change to be on the "winning side".
)
)Sheesh!  What WIMPS! ;-)

Don't give WIMPS a bad name! :-(

Actually, I think that some of the 'mYn' types probably could use support
more than criticism (it all depends on the individual, of course), but I find
it rather difficult to feel  supportive rather than frustrated by their
attitudes myself.

--
I've noticed that *some* people do NOT love their neighbors, and I
HATE PEOPLE LIKE THAT!

-Tom Lehrer
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Organization: Sure, sure, just as soon as I find my car keys. . .
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 23:46:44 GMT

In article <713323855@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>One of modern feminism basic believes is that controlling
>women's sexuality via anti-abortion laws is bad, but
>controlling men's sexuality via "no choice for *men* in a
>case of birth control failure" is good.
>
>That's what Politically Correct people really mean when
>they talk about "choice" and "equality."

Hear Hear!  At last, someone who understands. . .

John
stevens@uswest.com
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support,alt.abortion.inequity
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 15:00:01 GMT

In article <1992Aug15.004355.3096@ryn.mro4.dec.com> walsh@starbd.enet.dec.com (Thomas Walsh) writes:

)>Generic choice for men & women
)>
)>1) Live
)>2) Die

)So what's your point?  A man's choice in reproductive freedom should be 
)parenthood or suicide?  You could say the same about the woman and make 
)abortion illegal.  Is that what your recommending?

Nope.  But besides indulging in a little black humor, it seems to me that
this argument has taken a wrong turn somewhere - there (almost) always is a
'choice', but the mere existence of a choice doesn't seem sufficient to
guarantee fairness/reasonablness/justice/whatever.
From: baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Tax Breaks for Decent
Date: 20 Aug 92 17:06:37 GMT
Organization: BT North America, San Jose CA.

In article <1992Aug20.014359.15741@zooid.guild.org>, goid@zooid.guild.org (Will Steeves) writes:
|> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes...
|> TK> Just for your information, College graduate females, in the US, since
|> TK> 1980, earn $1.01 for every $1.00 that their male counterparts earn.
|> 
|> Where did you get this reference?  I am not disbelieving you ; I am just
|> asking for a reference so that I can use it when I debate with others.

Actually I need a ftp path or copy of the XX cents to every $1 FAQ paper
also.

Thanx a bunch.

-- 
d'baba Duane M. Hentrich	baba@Tymnet.Com

We have yet to learn that the thing uttered in words is not therefore affirmed. It must affirm itself, or no forms of logic or of oath can give it evidence. 
The sentence must also contain its own apology for being spoken. - R.W.Emerson
Newsgroups: soc.men