HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Child Support
Keywords: abortion
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 17:07:57 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.164401.6552@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>  
>>>I would expand on "request". I would support requiring that the 
>>>woman must notify the man within [some period of time] after becoming
>>>pregnant that she is pregnant. Within [some period of time] after
>>>they will file a "parenting plan" with the state.
> 
>>What happens if they disagree -- ie., the default occurs?
> 
>>Should the man be forced to pay child support if he requested
>>(but was clearly unable to force) an abortion?
>
>No, because in the default situtation Jen outlined (when no "parenting
>plan" is filed) the woman becomes the sole legal parent.

Huge numbers of parents with sole legal custody are awarded child support.

I like Jen's plan, with the following changes:  the "parenting plan"
need not be jointly submitted, and the default assignments should be 
sex-independent.


>>Can a man be trusted to make responsible and well-thought-out
>>decisions about his ability (or desire) to raise or support children?
>
>Gosh, can anyone??  This can be asked of women just as well as of
>men... right?  What's the point here?

That is exactly the point.

To me, the debate over abortion seems to include not just "bodily privacy"
but whether a person has a right to make reproductive decisions
after pregnancy begins.  The latter is often justified by saying
that a woman can make a responsible, deeply-considered decision about
whether she can shoulder the responsibilities of parenthood -- and 
that she should be free to decide.


>>When birth control failures occur, is that a right 
>>only to be reserved for women?
>
>Which right?

The right to decide, shortly after a birth control failure, not to
take on a lifelong responsibility to a child.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
From: cd382@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Jim Walker)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Homophobia causes Sexism? (was Re: Feminist Jokes)
Date: 12 Nov 1992 06:09:54 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: cd382@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Jim Walker)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu



It goes the other way too.  I've known men to justify their
homophobia in terms of sexual harassment.  They don't like
the way those gays on the corner leer at them.  These same
guys leer at women.  How terrible that gays should treat
men like women.  How terrible that gays should prove that
it is possible to have a relationship where the partners
are truly equal.

Jim
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Secretly Wishing... (was: Feminist Jokes)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 15:07:39 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.112556.12224@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>In article <1992Nov10.003315.23302@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>None of it has been funny. But I would like to point out another
>>anti-symmetry in these feminist arguments. (did i invent a new word?)
>>In another thread, it was pointed out that women who are self confident
>>could care less what the models look like, while those who are insecure
>>may well feel threatened. This was taken as an attack the victim post
>>by at least one person, and I suspect more to follow. In another thread
>>it was directly asserted that any male who feels threatened by feminism
>>is obviously not getting enough sex, because it could only be the result
>>of sexual frustration. None of the other feminists commented on this.
>
>Could you repost the post which said that?  I find that you
>misrepresent a lot of what people post, so I'm not sure at all that
>anyone has posted any such thing.

Hey, you said that I was in your KILL file!!!

As for your slanderous claim of misrepresentation, prove it. Rini has
been full of it in many of her claims, and at least once she just made
up something that was not there. She has also claimed that I have 
misrepresented -my- opinion, and there I am positive she is wrong.

Look up your own posts, and while you are at it, extract the posts
where you find that I "misrepresent a lot of what people post".

This is not a rhetorical question.

Like sexism, if you look hard enough, and you really want to find it,
you can find misrepresentation. But in most cases, misrepresentation
is in the mind of the beholder.



Rich

payner@netcom.com




Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Feminist Jokes
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 02:55:21 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.070504.24838@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>In article <23650@galaxy.ucr.edu> starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu (starbuck) writes:
>>
>>I said what I said for a number of reasons formost of which is what 
>>feminists on the net and in print say about men, society, and history.  
>>I feel that women who feel about men in the way that these women do
>>could not have meaningful relationships with men in general.  They do
>>not like men and some even hate men, at best are indifferent.  
>
>You feel this way.  I feel that many so-called hetero men hate women
>very much.

This has me confused. By "so-called hetero men" hating women, do you
mean that the men who hate women are not -really- hetero? I guess
that would make then gay or non-sexual.


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Why I Am a Feminist
Date: 7 Nov 92 17:55:05 GMT
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>>>Well, there are a few duplications, but there were 175 instances of the
>>>word rape in the last 10 days. Here is a list, I can compress the posts
>>>and mail them to you if you want.
  
>>Well, if you think talking about rape, sexually harrassment and
>>child abuse by default *implies* that's the only things men do, okay 
>>you win.  I, for one, have not drawn the same conclusion.  
 
>Lets's turn that around, is rape a normal everyday topic, which, like
>the weather, you would expect to come up in most conversations?

No, rape is not an everyday topic.  But bringing it up certainly
does not mean "I think men are slime."  

I would agree that rape is topic relevant to feminism, so it is bound
to turn up on this newsgroups more often than on, say, alt.chit.chat. 

>Because it eventually gets brought up in a majority (I am pretty sure)
>of topics here.

Could be.  I know I've never really participated in a discussion of it
before.  

>I would also like to point out that feminists say that what men say, and
>the way they say it, limits and devalue women. If this is true, does
>not the same apply to the way feminists talk about men? 

To my knowledge, no one has gotten away with saying/implying something 
like "all men are rapists" on the net.

rini
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: julie@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu (Julie Wright)
Subject: Re: Child Support
Organization: The Cultural Elite
	<BxK4w0.2K1@cs.psu.edu> <1992Nov12.154737.27500@ll.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 22:42:50 GMT

x73rl@ll.mit.edu ( Rick Lafave) writes:

>  If you believe the leadership of NOW; women have an inborn ability to 
>nurture and care, that men just don't have.  They are upset that 10% of 
>contested custody disputes place the child(ren) with the father.  I presume 
>they would like to see the number at 0.000% .

Is this just a blind prejudice on your part, or can you actually cite
any statement by the leadership of NOW to this effect?  

>  As an aside; feminism and gender equality do not go hand in hand.  

I'm not sure what you mean by "go hand in hand", but if you mean that 
feminism as it currently stands does not address all problems of gender
inequality, I'm inclined to agree with you.  If the Right Side of any
issue were always obvious, we could just form the Good People Party and 
all agree in harmony on what should be done.  Instead, good and honorable
people can have disagreements about what the problems are, but also, 
especially, about what the priorities and approaches should be in addressing
those problems.  Just as I'm happy to see some feminist groups focus
on reproductive rights, others on domestic violence, and still others
on more general themes and approaches, I support fighting gender inequality
on many fronts, and I don't expect feminist groups to tackle everything
at once.  However, if a feminist group actively supports discrimination
against men in custody decisions based on their gender, they've lost me.
I'm not too inclined to simply take your word for this, though.
 
>The 
>majority of (not all) feminists believe the current system of *female 
>requires choice; man made choice when unzipping fly* is equitable.  

Could you please cite the poll which determined that this position is
held by the "majority" of feminists?  

>NOW 
>is in the business of promoting feminist issues, and that includes retaining 
>female advantages wherever they exist, while eliminating male advantages.
>This is neither good nor bad.  

Bullshit.  If you can prove to me that NOW favors retaining unfair female
advantages in custody decisions, while eliminating any male advantages,
I'll say it's bad, and so would you, I'll bet.

---Julie
-- 
* loris, n.     Any of several small, nocturnal, arboreal primates of the *
* genera _Loris_ and _Nycticebus_, of tropical Asia, having dense, woolly *
* fur, large eyes, and a vestigial tail.  [French, probably from obsolete *
* Dutch _loeris_, simpleton, clown.]    ---- American Heritage Dictionary *
From: schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: liberal men are a hot item?
Date: 13 Nov 1992 17:19:38 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

In article <MUFFY.92Nov13084310@remarque.berkeley.edu>
muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>
>Well, neither of us *has* claimed that the majority don't exist.  We've
>simply objected to the suggestion that the minority, which we are part
>of, does not exist (i.e. that no one, including feminists, is interested
>in liberal men).

And of course, nobody made such a sweeping claim.  The original idea
(Rini can correct me here if I misinterpret) was that women as
a rule are more likely to prefer 'liberal' men than men are to
prefer 'liberal' women, other things being equal.  My response
is that other things are not equal, specifically that women as
a rule prefer 'masculinity,' and that this might create conflicts
that are difficult to resolve.

-S. Schultz
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: liberal men are a hot item?
Date: 12 Nov 1992 16:38:26 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

In article <MUFFY.92Nov11181836@remarque.berkeley.edu>
muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

>>Which means that your remarks about androgyny have little relevance
>>to the original claim (see the subject line).  I'm pointing this out
>>on the off-chance that you might have thought otherwise.
>
>Well, I *did* think otherwise, because in the article I was replying to,
>Robert Schaeffer was talking about men looking like "hunks."  Sorry to

And why did a reference to hunks make you think 'otherwise,' i.e.
that you were contributing to the subject of liberal men?

>confuse you by addressing the contents of the article and not just the
>subject line.

No confusion at this end -- Rini's original point was being lost
in the general venting of spleen, and I offered a little focus.

-S. Schultz
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell)
Subject: Re: Appoved Bodies
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 17:50:21 GMT

In article <carol.721445913@ee.uts.EDU.AU> carol@ee.uts.edu.au (Carol Gibson) writes:
>misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu (Devjani Mishra) writes:
>
>>Actually, when body-type preference studies are conducted, by asking men
>>which female body types (using faceless outlines) they find most attractive
>>and asking women which female body types *they believe* men find most
>>attractive, women nearly always choose thinner, taller types than men do. 
>>I think that's even sadder.
>
>Just like men often think women want more muscley types... Do you
>think that is sad too?
>
>	Carol

I do *chuckle*.  I hate to say it but in my younger days I spent hours
at the gym getting larger then I liked because of this assumption only
to learn it wasnt necessarily so and the ultimate pitifulness of being
preoccupied with ones appearance beyond a certain point.

Steve

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Subject: Re: MacKinnon (was Re: Please explain this quote)
Organization: QQQCLC
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 04:30:57 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.233553.19019@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>kb:
>|         No, just inane. You're squirming, Gordon. I take my culture and
>| attitudes into the bathroom when I relieve myself, too, but that's
>| hardly the question. Rather, it is whether the magazine selectively
>| reinforces negative cultural attitudes. Shit, _anything_ can be evil in
>| the wrong brain; Manson got inspired by an innocuous Beatles song.
>
>That's not quite what I meant. [...]
>
>Now, if sexual availability is taken to be a mark of low 
>status and vulnerability, as our language would seem to 
>indicate, then a fairly reasonable argument can be made 
>that _in_our_cultural_context_ such a picture might 
>contribute to the disempowering of the category of person 
>it represents.

	Gordon, do you realize what you just said? Guess what: if sexual
availability were a mark of low status, few men would have any status
at all :-).

	The feminists of 20 years ago figured out that sexual freedom
was a privelege unfairly hogged by men, and set out to change that.
Unfortunately, that part of women's liberation seems to have gotten lost
along the road to the millenium. I'll tell you what disempowers people:
letting censors and fascists and bluenoses tell 'em how to run their
lives. Freedom was never free. Sometimes you gotta go against the grain.
It takes a lot of guts to pose for Playboy. The fundies will call you
immoral, the pseudo-feminists will call you a traitor to your gender,
and a lot of clueless folk of both sexes will write you off as an
airhead. Me, I like people with the self-confidence to tell 'em all to
go to hell.

-  From the Crow's Nest  -                Kenn Barry
----------------------------------------------------------------
ELECTRIC AVENUE:    			barry@netcom.com
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: porn consumption
Date: 9 Nov 92 08:51:55
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu's message of Sat, 7 Nov 1992 21:47:04 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.214704.27662@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:
>I just ran across this statistic.

>Question:  Have you seen an X-rated movie in the last year?

>% saying YES:

   age            men  women
>  18-24      59.3   34.7
>  25-34      44.7   32.1
>  35-44      40.2   28.0
>  45-64      24.5   12.3
>  65+         8.5    3.9

>It's not quite as large a difference as I might've thought,
>though frequency of viewing is not accounted for.

Well, if this is a relatively new statistic, it makes a lot of sense.
From what I have heard (newspaper stories, mostly), since X-rated movies
started coming out on video, *many* more women have been watching them.
Primarily, as I recall, this change is due to couples renting movies
together.  (In fact, my SO and I just rented a couple last night...
*grin*.)  Women were not comfortable going into the X-rated theaters (or
even the areas), but the local video store is generally safe.

Muffy

--

Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
~Weavers' fingers flying on the loom/patterns shift too fast to be
 discerned/all these years of thinking/ended up like this/in front
 of all this beauty/understanding nothing~ - Bruce Cockburn
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: liberal men are a hot item?
Date: 11 Nov 92 13:07:08
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<MUFFY.92Nov10105034@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<1drs1lINNjv2@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: schultz@unixg.ubc.ca's message of 11 Nov 1992 20:56:21 GMT

In article <1drs1lINNjv2@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz) writes:
>In article <MUFFY.92Nov10105034@remarque.berkeley.edu>
>muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

>>However, I find them
>>extremely hot...particularly the androgynous seriously-feminist types.

>According to the literature, you're in a small minority.

Which literature is this?  Is this a minority of feminists, of het/bi
women, or of all people who are attracted to men?

>The 
>most attractive profile is closer to the traditionally 'masculine' than 
>'androgynous,' both physically and psychologically.

Again, to who?

>Note that 'androgynous' is not synonymous with 'liberal' in the sense 
>used here;

*grin*...I can't imagine androgynous being synonymous with liberal in
any sense.  One is a physical (or mental, I suppose) description, the
other is a political philosophy.  I guess there might be some small
connection, as a conservative man might be more likely than a liberal
man to attempt to downplay any "feminine" physical characteristics, but
I think that's rather a stretch.

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
~Weavers' fingers flying on the loom/patterns shift too fast to be
 discerned/all these years of thinking/ended up like this/in front
 of all this beauty/understanding nothing~ - Bruce Cockburn
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Please Tell me about the Male Gaze
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:59:41 GMT

In article <Bx4LEL.BEH@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jchason@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Julie Chason) writes:
>mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:
>
>>So this makes me curious: any hypotheses out there as to what mechanism 
>>would link computer literacy and net access to a certain subset of
>>feminist views?  In other words:  are there a priori reasons why we 
>>should suspect that the views we hear expressed on the net are not 
>>representative of the feminist population in general?
>
>>rini
>
>
>I have no idea that the net is not representative of the feminist population
>in general, but I have an idea why radical feminist ideas don't get much
>play.  Most people I know how are familiar with radical feminism (not 
>necessarily supportive of it) are in the humanities or sometimes the social
>sciences.  People in fields like history and English tend to avoid using 
>computers for more than word processing.  I should point out that by 
>"familiar with" I mean have studied to a minimal degree; i.e., haven't just
>been pissed off by radical feminist grafitti.  

On the flip side, there is no reason to assume that the men posting here
are representative of non-feminists either. I guess it would not be
unrealistic to assume that they would be representative of the computer
professional population, and to some extent, male students in computer
related majors (which may not be a valid categorization).
 
>And why does there seem to be a perception among some here that radical 
>feminism is representative of the whole?  Because radical feminists tend to 
>capture attention.  You get noticed more for saying men are biologically 
>incapable of being decent creatures.  It's a simple social psychological 
>principle--the more notable examples are presumed to be the more 
>representative examples.

Point taken. Note also the kind of men who are taken as the norm here. I would
not especially desire to meet any of these poor creatures. 

>And since I'm a postmodernist I don't think any one thing represents anything
>else, whether its the dominant (most powerful, most legitimized by the main-
>stream, or simply most numerous) element or not.

Were either group the norm, we probably would not be here discussing the
situation.



Rich

payner@netcom.com
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Child Support
Date: 11 Nov 92 07:54:25
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1djsrrINNreg@gap.caltech.edu>
	<misdeva-091192070158@morse-college-kstar-node.net.yale.edu>
	<1992Nov11.110125.11118@leland.Stanford.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU's message of Wed, 11 Nov 92 11:01:25 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.110125.11118@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:

>It's like the jokes about Dan Quayle and Murphy Brown.  He didn't like
>that she was a single mother, but he's against abortion.  What was she
>supposed to do?

>The obvious solution is that women should not have sex with men..

Oh, don't say that...that's terribly oppressive to men.  They'll be
calling you a radical feminist now...*grin*...good thing you didn't
mention sterilization....

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
~Weavers' fingers flying on the loom/patterns shift too fast to be
 discerned/all these years of thinking/ended up like this/in front
 of all this beauty/understanding nothing~ - Bruce Cockburn
QUIT
 nothing~ - Bruce Cockburn
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: whedon@netcom.com (Bill Whedon)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,rec.humor
Subject: Re: Feminist Jokes
Date: 10 Nov 92 21:18:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.1992Nov10.211854.7214
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

Rarely in my life have I ever seen so much narcissistic blather by so many
utter morons in one place at one time.  Are you people simply too stupid to
realize that your posts don't belong on rec.humor, or are you just too damn
consumed by your own inane rhetoric to realize where you're posting?

Please take it elsewhere, huh?
Thanks,
Bill Whedon

Here's my joke (sorry for the unpleasantness):
In a city somewhere in the world, there was a Catholic church across the
street from a synagogue.  Every once in a while, the parish priest would look
out the window of the parish house, just as the rabbi left on a journey.  Each
time, the rabbi would cross himself before walking down the stairs.  This went
on for several years, until, one day, the priest decided to ask the rabbi about
it.  Catching him leaving one day, Father William asked Rabbi Feinstein, 
"Excuse me, Rabbi, but, each time I see you leave your synagogue, you make the
sign of the Cross.  What does that mean in your religion?"  "Ah,", said the
Rabbi, "you simply misinterpreted my gesture.  Each time I leave to travel, I
just check myself out... you know, (making the gestures) spectacles, 
testicles, wallet, and watch!"

Cheers!
-- 
-- If I ain't programmin' I ain't awake! --
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: santos@aix02.ecs.rpi.edu (Sergio Santomauro)
Subject: Re: absentee for lynn
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 22:54:51 GMT

ppalmier@MtHolyoke.edu (Patricia S. Palmiere) writes:



>Is it true that they (the election board) does not count absentee ballots
>unless there is a slim margin?  I know that I actively campaigned for Lynn
>and cast an absentee for her myself.  I would hate to think that it had
>gone to waste.


The local election boards do not count absentee ballots unlesss they exceed
the difference in votes. So if your candidate won or lost by a huge margin
then your vote won't change the results, if it's close they count your
vote to determine the winner so I wouldn't call it a wasted vote.

-- Sergio
Newsgroups: alt.feminism