HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Men's Issues Newsbrie
Date: 4 Sep 92 21:40:08 GMT
Reply-To: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Distribution: na
Organization: Florida State University, but I don't speak for them

In article <1992Sep4.132650.3015@tfs.com> ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic) writes:
>I'd like to hear how we have gotten to where every fucking thing we do,
>gets analysed to damn bits. People no longer seem to realize their ethics
>do not depend upon an external consensus, and this bothers me greatly.
>
>Look for the simpler solutions, PLEASE.

The problem is that those of us who have actually followed sexual assault and
sexual battery cases realize that it is far from easy to apply simplistic ideas
to many cases.  I don't know whether ethics depend upon external consensus, but
the definition of felonies, standards of evidence, and appropriate punishments
certainly do.

One of the reasons that some of us are interested in such things is that we 
may have 1) been sexually assaulted or battered in our view and had to deal
with law enforcement and help agencies, 2) been accused of sexual assault or 
battery wrongly in our view and had to deal with people influenced by the
accusation, or 3) known people who have fit into categories 1 and 2.  

-EMP
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts)
Subject: Re: Male bashing in other newsgroups
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 03:45:08 GMT

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

Ken

Newsgroups: soc.men
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: What is Wrong with this picture?????
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:30:08 GMT

In article <1992Sep6.101010.7218@morrow.stanford.edu> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
)And guess who wrote this:
)
)"I also think a male-only draft is profoundly anti-male.  Every man
)drafted would have a 50 percent chance of not being (drafted) if women
)were.  The male-only draft discriminates against men."
)

I give up.  Who wrote it and where did they write it?



Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
From: hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress)
Subject: Re: K-Mark Hostages
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 22:46:41 GMT

Janice Kendall writes
>If men were more capable of dealing with their own emotions and were less
>dependent emotionally on women - they also might not become 
>obsessive/possessive and kill women who try to leave them.

  If women didn't treat men like walking cash machines
  then these violent acts would happen less often.
From: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: What is Wrong with this picture?????
Date: 9 Sep 92 23:37:42 GMT
Reply-To: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Organization: Florida State University, but I don't speak for them

Not sent to alt.feminism because I don't get it

In article <22204@galaxy.ucr.edu> starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu (aaron greenwood) writes:
>
>On alt.feminism a new term was introduced that was coined in finland.
>It does not have the negitive associations that anti-feminist has.  That
>term is post-feminist.

Alas, the term "post-feminist" is already accounted for.  It's a term used a
lot by cultural feminists or feminists with post-structuralist leanings to
describe, roughly, the idea that feminism has uncovered a network of oppression
running through all our social structures and language, and that it is time
to analyze everything in terms of that revealed network.

In other words, consciousness-raising gets tenure.

As this is quite the opposite of what I believe, I cannot call myself a post-
feminist.

-EMP
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Men having babies
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:49:26 GMT

In article <qmosqB6w165w@cybernet.cse.fau.edu> arcane@cybernet.cse.fau.edu (Kendrick Davis) writes:
)
)
) It was put to our Gay and Lesbian Youth Group this question:
) 
) 
)  "What would the world be like if men could become pregnant? "
)
)
)    We'd like to hear your thoughts on it!!! (grin)

If you mean 'both men and women' could become pregnant, I thought the
fictional treatment in 'The Left Hand Of Darkness' by Leguin was reasonably
well done.

If you mean that men could become pregnant and not women, it would seem
likely that only the names would change - envision our current society with
men called women and women called men.
From: stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: EXCUSE, PLEASE!!!!!! (Was: Father Notification...)
Date: 6 Sep 92 04:58:49 GMT
Distribution: na

Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran writes

[justified in his own mind, perhaps]

+ Excuse me, but I have a question.  Could all of you married folks go look  
at
+ your marriage licenses, and see if there's something in there about how the
+ two of you have to talk?
+ 
+ How the two of you have to live together?
+ 
+ How the two of you have to get along?
+ 
+ How the two of you have to discuss ANYTHING?

Ah, I understand now. It's really clear. I can go out, booze, chase
women (catch some of 'em, too - but what to do with them ?), do
whatever I choose, whenever I choose, and if she doesn't like
it, well, tough cookies.

Gee, I always wondered what married life was like. Now I know. Thanx!

K'Char - wanna bet if I acted that way I'd be called a miserable
         excuse of a husband?
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: glp@fig.citib.com (Greg Parkinson)
Subject: Re: Polyamory (was Re: Adults, Children and sex) (LONG)
Originator: glp@merlin
Organization: Citibank IBISM
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 18:09:13 GMT


In article <1992Aug30.195955.27375@news.Hawaii.Edu>, cravener@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Patty Cravener) writes:
|> It seems to me that perhaps all this discussion of sexual
|> aberration and definitions of normalcy misses the point. Given
|> that society's acceptance of or tolerance for various social
|> behaviors changes over time, perhaps the attitudinal changes are
|> driven by population biology, and not a product of cognition or
|> philosophy at all.

  [.....]

|> As evidence for this possibility, I cite the overcrowding studies
|> done with rat populations during the 1950s & 1960s. (Please note
|> that there are also environmental studies of other mammals that
|> apply, and social psych. work from 1950 through the 70s... ) When
|> population density reaches certain levels (varying by species,
|> but predictable once the species norm is noted) social,
|> nurturant, and sexual behaviors of individuals within the
|> population changes in ways that have an eventual outcome of
|> reducing the rate of population increase. Thus, rats were
|> observed in strikingly higher rates of non-reproductive sexual
|> behaviors, often with the same sex.

Well, let's see, do you present your engorged 
sexual organs more or less depending on how
many people are in the mall that day?  Are you
more likely to mount other females when you're in
a city?  Do you repel the mounting advances of
males when you've spent the day in traffic?

I really can't see how the mounting behavior of
crowded rats says much about the complex interaction
that is defined as "mating" or "sex" or "love" in
humans.  There don't seem to be more gay people
or bisexual people now than there were before,
(there's just a lot fewer people hiding it)
and attempting to brush away the results of 25
years of gay/lesbian rights activism as merely
the symptoms of a sick society ignores the varying
ways in which sexuality and gender have been defined
and understood in human societies - crowded or
otherwise - throughout history.

Human beings are not rats and mounting behavior
is not love.  Are female rats submissive to their
males?  Are you submissive to men who wish to mate
with you?  Do you go into heat?  What is the average
size of your litters?  Do you kill and eat your mates
when your shared apartment is too small?  How many
times during your heat do you mate?  I'm sure we
can learn much about *you* from looking at female
rats, no?

-- 
Greg Parkinson                  Phone: 212-657-7814  Fax: 212-825-8607
Citibank,111 Wall Street        E-Mail: glp@fig.citib.com
New York, New York  10043
The opinions expressed are my own and not those of the big 'ol bank.
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Male bashing in other newsgroups
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com
Date: 10 Sep 92 09:59:20 GMT
Organization: Electronic Data Systems, Unigraphics Division, Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: lorena

In article <10669@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>, pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke) writes:
> The people who really enjoy this stuff are more to be pitied than censured,
> so much does it reveal about their vapidity and pettiness.
> 

  Maybe not censured, as that is a violation of first amendment protections.
But, I do believe that such negative grass roots impresions must be actively
countered, or the general population gradually comes to believe that the group
being portrayed in such negative terms must somehow desrve such treatment.
From that point to tolerence of open political repression is a very short
step.

  Do we really deserve to be cast as such villians? If not,, it's
up to us be our own publicists and re-educate the population that we're
for the most part decent,hardworking, family oriented people.


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com  Middle-Aged Mutant Ninja Animator   |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|                    When 911 won't work,  .357 will!                    |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
From: hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress)
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 23:46:31 GMT

Sue Larsen wrote:
     ". . . inheritance and estates are a driving 
     force in human existence.  It is not something 
     most folks take lightly."

Just because you're interested in money (from the dad)
and familial slavery -- doesn't mean that I am!

So this is why women read stupid English 
royalty novels -- They like the notion of
getting homes and money from a man (daddy).
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: mikel@col.hp.com (Mike Lopke)
Subject: Re: Male bashing in other newsgroups
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 15:42:28 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division

Gentlemen,

When presented with one of these lists of "Seminars", why not suggest
an alternative, one that will deal directly with the problem at hand.
Perhaps a play.  My I suggest "The Taming of the Shrew"?  :-)

Reguards,
Mike
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
From: slarsen@mozart.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen)
Subject: Re: K-Mark Hostages
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 19:28:12 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.115634.6110@walter.cray.com> jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood) writes:
>In article <1992Sep10.224641.14189@u.washington.edu> hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress) writes:
>>Janice Kendall writes
>>>If men were more capable of dealing with their own emotions and were less
>>>dependent emotionally on women - they also might not become 
>>>obsessive/possessive and kill women who try to leave them.
>>
>>  If women didn't treat men like walking cash machines
>>  then these violent acts would happen less often.
>
>
>I agree, Mr EuStress. 
>

No, I do not agree.  No one is responsible for violence except 
the person perpetrating the violence.  I don't care how evil 
some guy's ex-wife, mother, sister, children are, that man of 
his own volition picked up that gun and committed a violent 
act.  He is alone responsible for that act.  If the system is 
evil, change the system.  If the ex-wife is criminal, punish 
her.  But there is no action on anyone's part that justifies 
an individual terrorizing others in a store.

And, I do not appreciate the implication that women's behavior 
can control a man's violence.  This is the same thing as saying 
that a battered wife asked for or somehow deserved to be beaten.

And, I further do not appreciate the veiled threat that if 
the system doesn't change I could be harmed due to some man's 
"righteous" anger.  I shop at K-mart, often.


Sue Larsen
slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu
From: fedrick@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Kelvin W. Fedrick)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Do Men Have Reproductive Rights?
Date: 9 Sep 92 04:40:40 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

In article <1992Sep8.122518.6630@walter.cray.com> jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood) writes:
>
> The point is Kelvin, the best interests of the children is soaking
>fathers for every dime they can get because the courts, t.v., Hillary,
>the Children's Defense Fund(S FROM MEN), ACES, feminazis and
>Donahues all presume that fathers don't count, just their paychecks.

 Why do I get the feeling you think I am disagreing with the original
 posting? I didn't say anything negative about it! *My* point had nothing
 to do with the greater content of the posting. I simply asked a question.

 Relax and just *read* what I said instead of trying to read stuff *into*
 what I said.

>Kelvin, spend a day at family court. 

 I have. I am still getting reamed and still trying to pay my lawyer off.

-kelvin
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: chrz@tellabs.com (Peter Chrzanowski)
Subject: Re: EuStress Has Trouble With Words
Organization: Tellabs, Inc.
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 17:54:59 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.154104.19454@yang.earlham.edu>, joeo@yang.earlham.edu writes:
> In article <715922557@lear.cs.duke.edu>, gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:
> > In article <1992Sep8.002927.18462@ultb.isc.rit.edu> 
> > kls4344@ritvax.isc.rit.edu writes:
> > Do you know what the length of adoption waiting lists for
> > newborn babies?
> > 
> 
> 	The length of adoption waiting lists for WHITE babies.  That is an 
> important distinction because in the U.S. the majority of aborted babies 
> and unwanted babies are black.

  Do you know how many social agencies insist that adoptive parents be of the same
  race and religion as the child's mother?  I think you'll find that many white
  parents would adopt a non-white baby, but both public and private agencies
  apparently would rather see these babies fostered or institutionalized.

 
  That's not to say all babies are adoptable, of course; so-called
  "special needs" babies are hard to place.

  This month's Atlantic Magazine has an article describing some of the
  difficulties faced by adoptive parents and adopted children.  I'd imagine
  it might be an eye-opener for many people.  The implicit conclusion --
  do this with your eyes open, unclouded by romantic illusions -- is 
  good advice for anyone raising someone else's child (-ren).

  BTW, 'our' foster son moved out.  He's now a freshman at Carroll College, 
  in Wisconsin.  Most foster kids, and many adopted children, don't leave
  like this (because they're ready to go), but because they're thrown out ... 
 
> 
> 						JoEo
> 						Joe Orenstein


Xref: sparky soc.men:16163 soc.women:16344 alt.child-support:3100 alt.dads-rights:2219
From: hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress)
Subject: Re: EuStress Has Trouble With Words
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 22:34:00 GMT


I wrote:
   The child should be supported by people who ***CHOOSE***
   to support him.  My biological offspring (who are NOT "my" 
   kids) are supported by two married adult professionals, 
   (Who still make about $70,000/year) three "greater" families
   (who are larger is size and fairly well off), their church 
   (The Mormons -- who have the best welfare system available) 
   and by the community (Provo, Utah -- ranked #1 [last year]
   city in the nation by Money magazine) and by other governments.

Katie replies:
   But what if *no one*, both biological parents included, want to 
   support this child?  What would you do with your son if your 
   son's biological mother was equally adamant as you about not 
   supporting him?

Reread how I listed all the people who are waiting in line to
care for the kids.

Child-Support is wonderful -- unless it's forced
-- then it's financial gang rape.
Xref: sparky soc.men:16309 soc.women:16468
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: K-Mark Hostages
From: arothman@eve.wright.edu (Aric C. Rothman)
Date: 11 Sep 92 09:30:59 EST
Organization: Wright State University

In article <1992Sep10.211522.5711@adobe.com> kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall) writes:
>In article <1992Sep10.112430.1@mdcbbs.com> rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:
>>In article <1992Sep9.230821.20178@u.washington.edu>, hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress) writes:
>>> I wrote:
>
>Actually, I hope all you fathers out there are nowadays allowing your sons
>to cry and show emotion.  I interpret this violence as being created by men
>who have no way of dealing with these overwhelming emotions other than to
>blame and act out against any one they can find.  The historical role of
>women has been the family caretaker, which has also meant dealing with the
>family emotions.  Men could not show emotion because that would be showing
>a weakness.

My dad wasn't the one who tried to supress my emotions or my
unconventional interests as a child, it was my mother.
(I wanted to learn how to sew and knit but she wouldn't teach me.)

I think the problem with fathers in our society is that they are raising
potentially violent male through inaction, not action.  Dad's are too
busy trying to be the breadwinner, the ideal that was hammered into them
since childhood, and are not being more active role models.  This is not
because they are bad men, but because they are doing what they always
were told was their job.

If we are to look at the origins of anti-social behavior in some men in
a general way, many I suggest look at the kind of treatment they
received from their primary caregiver, i.e. mom.

>If men were more capable of dealing with their own emotions and were less
>dependent emotionally on women - they also might not become 
>obsessive/possessive and kill women who try to leave them.

A sexist and inflammitory statement.  "Men" don't do this, a very small
minority of men do, just as a very small minority of women kill their
husbands and they cry "battered spouse syndrome."

>And mothers, this goes for you as well.  Women have an equal responsibility
>to raise boys & girls who are allowed to feel and help them learn to deal with 
>uncomfortable feelings as well as allowing/accepting pleasurable feelings.

In truth, moms have more responsibilty in this, an unfortunate fact that
is unfair to both dads and moms.  Distant fathers who are too busy
keeping roofs over their families heads' tend not to participate in
raising emotionally well adjusted children.  Mom always being their
would probably contribute to that emotional dependancy of men on women
you cite.

This thread appear to be converging with the thread about that USA Today
article about the relative uselessness of fathers.
 

> Janice Kendall    kendall@adobe.com    ...!{decwrl|sun}!adobe!kendall
>
>		"Creativity overcomes violence."
>				John Bradshaw on "Homecoming"

Aric Rothman
From: robert@informix.com (Robert Coleman)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Male bashing in other newsgroups
Date: 14 Sep 92 19:52:24 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

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

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

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

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

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

>An aware person should be able to maintain perspective.

	What is the perspective when male-bashing in the form of jokes is
considered a harmless activity, but a similar effort about women would be
considered mysogyny?  What is the perspective when this, passed around in
a business environment, is good clean fun, but the opposite effort could 
get a man fired?

	This list is quite amusing, taken out of the context of the real world.
That's not a realistic perspective.  Racial jokes can be amusing as well;
just out of curiousity, would you tell a black man to laugh off racial jokes?

	Let me emphasize that I would find this list amusing if the
environment were such that women would find the opposite list amusing.
However, the real world penalties are such that the spreadability of this list
amounts to a power differential, a way to attack men as a group without facing
any consequences or having to develop a similar sense of humor, and 
unfortunately, for me, that component overpowers the innate humor content of 
the list.

	Also, in general, the amount of man-bashing in the form of humor that
goes on in our media gets disheartening after awhile; check out the new fall
season.  Of course, this is an effect of the above problem; women-bashing
shows are not allowed, men-bashing shows are, therefore we'll see lots of
men-bashing humor.

Robert C.
-- 
----------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: My company has not yet seen fit to
	    elect me as spokesperson. Hmmpf.
From: matikain@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Esko Matikainen)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Unisex bathrooms
Summary: Men in women's toilets
Date: 8 Sep 92 16:05:43 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

>So why one MEN and one WOMEN?  Why not two bathrooms and
>you do your stuff?  Anyway, there were NO women present at the time.
>NONE!  But there were 12 guys all hopping on one foot outside the
>MEN door.  So we all looked at each other and we took our turns in
>the ladies room (alone) and went on our way.  The question is not
>why we did that - but why the other guys didn't.

One good reason for having one MEN and one WOMEN is that the "MEN"
usually mess up their's so that few women feel like using it after them.
Xref: sparky soc.men:16044 soc.women:16233 alt.child-support:3070 alt.dads-rights:2208 alt.sex:28557
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,alt.sex
Subject: Is sexual freedom a good thing? (Was Re: Right To Not Support)
Date: 7 Sep 92 01:46:27 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

In article <VIXIE.92Sep6173524@cognition.pa.dec.com> 
vixie@pa.dec.com (Paul A Vixie) writes:
>The basis by which an adult female is granted the legal right to terminate a
>pregnancy has nothing to do with "last resort...birth control" and it has
>nothing to do with "reproductive freedom".  

Read sometime what feminists wrote about abortion right *before* 1974.
The traditional view point was that sexual freedom is a dangerous thing
and it should be controlled.  The "penalty" for sex was either the
risks of unwanted pregnancy or to get sterilized.

Feminists demanded their sexual freedom and defined (rightly IMO) female
sexuality as a good thing that should not be controlled by the state.  
Now we see the same feminists define *male* sexuality as a bad thing.  
The "penalty" for sex should be either the financial risks of unwanted 
pregnancy or to get sterilized.

>Legally, this "right" comes out

Leave all the lawyer like arguments at the door.  Let's talk about
justice, sexual freedom and rights.  Why are you scared of such talk?
Newsgroups: soc.men