HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth)
Subject: Re: Duck and Jive (was Re: Pre-Sex Contract )
Organization: Software Engineering Institute
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 08:16:31 EST

In article <1992Dec16.190828.20581@netcom.com> desiree@netcom.com (Desiree Champagne) writes:

>	And put aside the bullshit about if she doesn't want the agreement
>in the first place.  People do have the right, do they not, to change
>their minds -- particularly about something like popping a kid?  Or
>is that concept too much for your rigid mind to allow?  

You're right.  You're absolutely right.  A woman has the right to enter
into any agreement or contract whatsoever, of any degree of formality,
and the further right to weasel out of it at any later time, for any
rreason or none, to walk away scot free, and stick the nearest male
human (aka "wallet") with the bill.

Now are you happy?

>	I am grossly tired of men that whine about double-standards
>in this here life.  Yes, I understand that are plenty of double-standards
>that we as a society have introduced.  And we all should be attuned to
>those "false" double standards and strive to rid ourselves of them.

For instance, all double standards that benefit men at the expense of women.

>But the bottom line is:  there are natural double standards over which
>we shouldn't have any control.  

For instance, all double standards that benefit women at the expense of men.
Including, of course, the one that says men are responsible for their own
actions and choices, and also responsible for the woman's actions and choices.

Xref: sparky soc.men:21327 talk.abortion:52248 alt.abortion.inequity:5984
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.men,talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Male Choice (1)
Date: 17 Dec 92 19:08:28 GMT
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: Duke University Computer Science Dept.; Durham, N.C.

In article <1gohs1INN10a@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com 
(Adrienne Regard) writes:

>Ah.  So not supporting a change you or someone else proposed (for 
>reasons sufficient to me at the time) equates to fighing against?

You wrote several articles against that.

*I* see it as a fighting against that.

>Boy, oh boy, 'getting my help' sure does qualify as working against,
>don't it?

The "help" you offered was by setting the agenda.

No thanks.

>>Do you support the idea of "choice for men" in the first weeks of the 
>>pregnancy?  Let's hear a clear statement about your current position.

>As it has been cross-posted to talk.abortion, no I do not.

>For many of the same reasons I originally mentioned years ago.  The
>proposals I have seen appear to me to do more harm than good.  Both
>to men and to children.

Why do you insist about telling me what's good for men?

How do you feel about all the "nice" talk.abortion men who tell
you how much better off women will be without an abortion right?

That's how I feel about you.

>Now, you, Hillel, can do us all a favor and provide evidence for your
>claim that I'm working AGAINST it.

Do you view the men who say something like "the current abortion
laws cause more harm than good for women and children" as people 
who fight against your abortion right?

If telling that an idea will do more harm than good is not a fight
against this idea, then is that?

>Adrienne Regard

Hillel                                     gazit@cs.duke.edu

"There are worse things to be than a bigot.  I'd rather keep company
with a bigot who lets me go my own way than a well-intentioned man
who presumes to know what is good for me."  --  Wendy Thrash
Xref: sparky soc.men:21011 alt.dads-rights:2896 alt.abortion.inequity:5813 alt.child-support:3917
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 19:05:11 GMT

In article <1g63f1INN9ap@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>
>>In article <1fpjdnINNbkq@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>
>>>he hasn't stuck around long enough to find out
>>>that she's bearing a child.  A full-term pregnancy is pretty obvious.
>>>(painfully obvious, one might say!)  One would think that the man would
>>>notice it.  Or, at least, hear about it from his friends.  
>
>>You're saying a man has to rely on "word of mouth" to know that 
>>he's a father.  If he hasn't heard from his friends that he's a
>>father, then he must have "fled the scene," and can't possibly
>>be interested in his child.
>
>OK, let's hear your less "parochial" explanation of how a man 
>could miss noticing that his sex partner is full-term pregnant.

Your parochialism sticks out like a sore thumb.

What makes you think a man OR A WOMAN is obligated to stay with,
pursue, keep in touch with, observe, or continue any sort of
relationship with someone he or she has slept with?

Did it occur to you that one or three night stands occur, that year-long
relationships end without the couple wanting to see each other again,
that men and women move out of town or get busy with work, that not 
every pair of sex partners has the same group of friends?

Why should your parochial attitudes dictate a person's parental rights
under the law?

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited
X-To: MICHAL LEAH PERI
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 22:54:00 GMT

peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes...
MLP> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

MLP> >In article <1fpjdnINNbkq@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Lea
MLP> i) writes:

MLP> >>he hasn't stuck around long enough to find out
MLP> >>that she's bearing a child.  A full-term pregnancy is pretty obvious.
MLP> >>(painfully obvious, one might say!)  One would think that the man would
MLP> >>notice it.  Or, at least, hear about it from his friends.

MLP> >You're saying a man has to rely on "word of mouth" to know that
MLP> >he's a father.  If he hasn't heard from his friends that he's a
MLP> >father, then he must have "fled the scene," and can't possibly
MLP> >be interested in his child.

MLP> OK, let's hear your less "parochial" explanation of how a man
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
MLP> could miss noticing that his sex partner is full-term pregnant.
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
MLP> (remember: we're not talking about abortion -- we're talking
MLP> about a man's needing to be formally notified so that he can
MLP> claim his ofspring from the clutches of the adoption ward)


Michal, I believe that the reason why Don used the word "parochial," was that
in many debates over situations where a man and a woman are involved, you only
seem to allude to situations where *the man* is the one at fault, ie., in this
case, you spoke about the man "fleeing the scene," this providing an
explanation why he would not know that he had fathered a child.

But, there *is* also the possibility that the mother chose to "flee the scene"
in order to prevent his finding out about the child.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Saddam Hussein still has his job.  Do you?
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Male Choice (1)
Date: 16 Dec 1992 16:33:05 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <724538527@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>#Most good feminists, like Adrienne, fight against "choice for men," even
>#when women's choice is pretty secured (like after the last election and
>#and Supreme Court decision).
>In article <1gnk6eINNhal@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com 
>(Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>Ah, and now you are lying, too, just for good measure.  I do not and never
>>have fought against choice for men.  
>When the idea of choice for men was raised in soc.men for the first time
>you were around.  You said that you were against that because it would
>put men in a worse position. 

Ah.  So not supporting a change you or someone else proposed (for 
reasons sufficient to me at the time) equates to fighing against?

Now, we all know that you aren't brilliant with the English language,
but would you like us all to assume you haven't sufficient grasp of same?

>>Well, too damn bad, Hillel, because you are getting my help whether you
>>want it, like it, RECOGNISE it, or not.

Boy, oh boy, 'getting my help' sure does qualify as working against,
don't it?

>>In fact, I'm somewhat sympathetic to some of the arguments.
>Do you support the idea of "choice for men" in the first weeks of the 
>pregnancy?  Let's hear a clear statement about your current position.

As it has been cross-posted to talk.abortion, no I do not.

For many of the same reasons I originally mentioned years ago.  The
proposals I have seen appear to me to do more harm than good.  Both
to men and to children.

Now, you, Hillel, can do us all a favor and provide evidence for your
claim that I'm working AGAINST it.

Feh.

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: soc.men,misc.legal,ba.singles,soc.singles,soc.women
From: bob@netcom.com (Bob Becker)
Subject: Re: Pre-Sex Contract
Keywords: sex, agreement, legal, contract
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 15:07:54 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.063654.9388@netcom.com> rohwerwd@netcom.com (Mr. Tickle Monster) writes:
>     Here is some more arguments for my point of view.

GET A CLUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
99% of the people on here think you're an ignorant jerk.
Every time you post something you reinforce that opinion.
Give everybody - and yourself - a break and GO AWAY!!
Just give it up.
Nobody is going to use a pre-sex contract.


Xref: sparky soc.men:21370 soc.women:21615 talk.abortion:52328
From: joemays@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Joseph F. Mays)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: What's really behind this "men's choice" thing?
Date: 18 Dec 92 14:21:01 GMT
Organization: Dept. of CS Ball State University Muncie IN

In article <1992Dec16.202901.19670@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
 writes:

>Personally, I don't justify the ability to place the infant for
>adoption....  That is, I don't think the mother should be able to
>place an infant for adoption when the father wants it; furthermore, if
>the father gets custody (whether by agreement with the mother or
>because a court decided that would be best for the child, which it
>probably is more often than courts currently acknowledge), I think the
>mother should be liable for child support.

I agree with this.  In fact, I think it's safe to say that most of the
pro-choice people I know would agree with this without hesitation.
I want to point out, that while I am far from knowledgeable in this
area, a divorced friend of mine, by mutual agreement with her ex-husband,
recently decided to transfer custody of their children to him.  Part of
the result was that she is obligated to pay child support to him now.
I think that's fair (and so does she).

Joe
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: real men
Date: 16 Dec 92 15:46:38 GMT
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <alanf.724480902@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au> alanf@cs.monash.edu.au (Alan Grant Finlay) writes:
>The "real men" in our society are the ones who are not touched by legislation,
>they murder women that refuse to behave as their property.  They don't care if

	Just what the hell do you mean by this, pal?

Xref: sparky soc.men:21077 alt.dads-rights:2913 alt.abortion.inequity:5851 alt.child-support:3926
From: haydedr@wkuvx1.bitnet (Ross Hayden)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: I HAD NO CHOICE ( was: Biological reasons etc...
Date: 11 Dec 92 22:51:00 CST
Organization: WKU Computer Science Dept.

bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron) writes:
> bouche2@server.uwindsor.ca (BOUCHER DAVID            ) writes:
> |> 
> |> When it comes to child support, the more he MAKES, the more they TAKE.  Also, 
> |> child support is NOT tax deductible, nor does the 'non-custodial parent' get
> |> the tax deduction for the children.  It doesn't increase the mother's tax 
> |> burden by one cent.
> |> 
> 
> If child support is a percentage, not a fixed amount, then it would seem
> that the less a man makes, the less he has to pay. Thus he is free to go
> back to school or otherwise reduce his income to 0 without any worries.

You think the law would ever work in favor of the man?  I hate to rock
your boat, but it seldom does in these situations.  Wise up.  Child
support payment rarely go down in response to a decrease in his income.

Oh, and could you tell us your secret to going to school on a $0 income
and being worry "free?"  I am essentially broke right now, unable to
buy a Christmas gift for my girlfriend; *Big* tuition bill coming up,
and there's a way out of the worry?

[...]

> So, are you objecting to supporting the children you wanted, or
> just pissed off that their mother left you?
> 
> -- 
> --Bruce
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Bruce M. Cameron		bmc@mayo.edu
> Mayo Foundation			voice: (507) 284-3288
> 200 1st St SW			fax:   (507) 284-9623
> Rochester, MN 55905		ARS -- WD9CKW

Pretty cold remark.  Seems he loves his children, yet can't express
that love (except for a few hours a week/month presumably).

-- 
Ross Hayden                     |
haydedr@wkuvx1.bitnet           |     "What you see is all you get."
Computer Science Department     |                -- Brian Kernighan
Western Kentucky University     |
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Date: 16 Dec 1992 12:23:31 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <724529703@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>Adrienne, a couple of years ago I asked you if you knew even a 
>single case where:

Gee, Hillel, you must have missed the newspaper article I posted less
than two weeks ago about a father who regained custody after 5 years
of separation.

Dunno what the support settlement was, since it wasn't mentioned in
the article.

>Have you found any case like that?

Scuse, please, but does my knowledge, or lack of knowledge, upon the
personal situations (these are sealed files, you know) of other people
make your case somehow?

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: soc.men
From: karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: I HAD NO CHOICE ( was: Biological reasons etc...
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 22:53:32 GMT
Organization: MCSNet, Chicago, IL

In article <724638124@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:
>In article <43XXVB1w165w@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca> lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca writes:
>
>> What is this? A wee bit of misogyny?  Talk about inflammatory generalizing!!!
>> Not ALL women are nasty, just as not all men are assholes. 
>
>The laws set in such a way that women can win, a lot, by being nasty.
>Quite a few people just can't stand the the temptation regardless of
>their race, sex and other irrelevant details.

Correct.

>> We all know there's a lot of wolves in sheep's clothing out there. The
>> question is, how do we turn such folk around so that there's more
>> "Win-Win" relationships, and less "I Win, You Lose" nastiness?  
>
>1) Stop giving women a prize for being nasty, and give stiff punishment 
>   in every case where there is a clear proof that someone is lying.       
>
>2) Let men a fair chance to win a divorce case.  The current system where
>   women win sole custody in 90%+ of the case will have to be changed.

Further, let's apply "affirmative action" to these cases.  That is, since
women win 90% of the divorce custody cases, it is time for men to be given
preferential treatment in these cases until the ratio reaches that in the
population -- which is about 49%.  

Women are to pay child support to these men as well, under the CURRENT
guidelines (25-40% of their pretax income).

Is this not fair?

>A solution that I suggested once was the following arbitration:
>"if both parents are competent, let them both submit proposals for
>custody and child's support.  The one who asks for the smaller 
>amount will get the custody of the kids."
>
>In a system like this, every parent will ask for the amount it really needs
>to support the children, and no more.  Also, because there will not be such
>a financial gain in winning the custody, a compromise will be more likely.
>The small details which are in the center of the court battle today will lose
>their importance because there will have to be a real proof for incompetence.

Yeah.  I like the affirmative action idea better.  It gets to the heart of
the matter.  And since men are in the minority now in the US (49% I believe)
it is supportable on the basis of law.

Comments?

--
Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900] Anon. arch. (nuucp) 00:00-06:00 C[SD]T
Request file: /u/public/sources/DIRECTORY/README for instructions

Newsgroups: soc.men
From: gilgan@ug.cs.dal.ca (Tommy Gilgan)
Subject: Re: The Solution
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 10:36:44 GMT

In article <BzGtwC.9Ht@srgenprp.sr.hp.com> ronh@sr.hp.com (Ron Hogan) writes:
>
>
>  Sometimes the solution is so obvious that everyone overlooks it.  All these
>problems between men and women would be over if they would just STOP HAVING
>SEX.

This is easily accomplished by entering a long term relationship. :)
From: dwelch@mpd.tandem.com (Dan Welch)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Text of Colorado amendment?
Date: 11 Dec 92 15:51:40 GMT
Organization: Tandem Computers (MPD) Austin, TX

Could someone post or e-mail me the text of the Colorado "anti-gay"
amendment?

Daniel Welch
----
so i jumped out of my bed and into the t.v. room and in my anger threw the
t.v. set out the window regretted instantly because this was a brand new
26 inch t.v. set in my bed once again, couldn't sleep because all my life,
all my dreams had gone out the window with this new t.v. set . . .
Xref: sparky soc.men:21525 alt.feminism:6311
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: "They take their ideology from Mao and their money from Daddy"
Summary: Mao?  With those _ugly_ quilted uniforms?  Oh, dear, no!
Date: 20 Dec 92 17:24:10 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

In article <724823777@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
| 
| #As a real idealist you just force someone else to pay for you ideals...
| 
| In article <1992Dec20.032801.26066@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com 
| (Kenn Barry) writes:
| 
| >	The illogic of your statement really stands out with the
| >intervening bullshit removed, doesn't it?
| 
| Sarcasm, of course, is wasted on people with no sense of humor...
| 
| (Especially on the kind of idealists who use the state power to 
| enforce their ideals, and even get paid for it...)

Like me.  You ought to see me in drag, Hillel, as a
Lesbian Nazi Oberkommandant -- spit-polished boots up to
my knees, attractive mesh stockings, and so on right
up to the large, weighty Death's Head insigne on my
authentic SS cap.  With the whip and the German Shepherd,
of course.  And bundles of U.S. Federal Government checks
spilling out of my stuffed bosom, as I inflict my ideals
on the hapless American people -- with a little
_discipline_, if you know what I mean.

Next week I'm interviewing in Little Rock for a 
substantial raise.  After all, under Bush I had to
be discreet, but the election of Clinton -- why, it's
like the whole Federeal Government's come Out.
-- 

 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Gays Assume the Postu
X-To: BRYAN J. BLUMBERG
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 01:33:00 GMT

bjb@macsch.com writes...
BJB> In article <F81iVB1w165w@netlink.cts.com> Jim Bowery, jim@netlink.cts.com
BJB> writes:
BJB> >We'll see if one of your Jewish American Princesses in the
BJB> >Senate like Boxer or Feinstien are MAN enough to take on the
BJB> >Arkansas Stud.  Fat chance.

BJB> Clearly Feinstien and Boxer are not men.  But you can
BJB> be sure that Boxer is a feisty fighter.  Feinstein may play a
BJB> little more by the rules, however.  I voted for both of the,
BJB> as well as Clinton.  I am glad that our two senators are not men.
                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Why not?  Do you presume them to be less able to govern?  While I realise
that Jim's comments about Jewish women were very rude, almost as rude as
his comment about "AIDS-vectors," I hardly think it reasonable to tar the
entire gender because of *one* man's remarks about two women.


BJB> To quote you, "it's quite obvious to anyone versed in"
BJB> physiology, that women have greater endurance than men.

Again, why are you using such sexist slurs, a la Barbara Jordan,  *just* to get
back at someone else's slurs?  Surely "two wrongs do not make a right" was not
just a misplaced lesson of youth, was it?

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Madness takes its toll; please have exact change!
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Newsgroup free of fem
X-To: BRONIS VIDUGIRIS
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 22:28:00 GMT

bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes...
BV> In article <24208@galaxy.ucr.edu> starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu (starbuck) writes
BV> )In article <1992Dec6.015845.12866@zooid.guild.org> goid@zooid.guild.org (Wi
BV> teeves) writes:
BV> )>tahl@tfs.com (Tahl Milburn) writes...
BV> )>TM> I just can't get too far with this newsgroup without getting bent out
BV> )>TM> of shape.  The newsgroup ends up being about women's issues and men/wo
BV> )>TM> issues not just simply _men's_ issues.  Seems like what the feminist
BV> )>TM> movemen was saying a while back, "do we always have to deal with
BV> )>TM> ourselves in relationship to men?"
BV> )>TM> I'm the only one that thinks so.  Maybe a group called
BV> )>TM> soc.really.mens.issue or soc.men.without.women.context or
BV> )>TM> Hardcore Masculist
BV> )
BV> )>Flame Bait...

BV> If you're willing to be a moderator (and can perhaps solve some of your
BV> connectivity problems, you seem to be lagging the rest of the net by quite
BV> a bit timewise), and/or can find someone willing to be a moderator, go for
BV> it.

Actually, it's Starbuck whom you were probably meaning to respond to.  I was
just the guy who said that Tahl's message would be flamed by many of the same
feminists who accuse *us* of monopolising soc.women.

BTW, the reason why I am "behind" is not because of any connectivity problems,
but just because I am behind in reading my QWK packets!  (Ugh!)

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * The future is now. This is a recording.
Xref: sparky soc.men:21128 alt.abortion.inequity:5889 alt.feminism:5987