HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Boy, are we ever hearing a lot about "Consequences," a men-only concept
X-To: MUFFY BARKOCY
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 23:29:00 GMT

muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes...
>In article <1992Dec18.041148.14307@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larr
> Margolis) writes:
>>In <1992Dec17.211922.15114@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu> conditt@tsd.arlut.utexa
>.edu (Paul Conditt) writes:
>>>
>>>Believe it or not, we *all* have the right to choose what happens to our
>>>bodies.  The thing that we don't seem to be willing to accept is *when*
>>>that choice occurs.  The choice occurs *before* you have sex, not during
>>>and certainly not after.

>>Yup.  And if you chose to not reproduce, by using birth control, then you
>>*have* made your choice.

>No, you have not "chosen to not reproduce" when you have sex using birth
>control.  You have simply chosen to take a "1/5/10/etc percent *chance*
>of reproducing" (the actual percentage depends on the type of birth
>control chosen and how well you use it).  If you gamble and lose, then
>you have to deal with the consequences.   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I'll bet the back forty that you wouldn't be saying *that* if abortion
was still illegal, Muffy.


Wharfie was 100% bang-on the mark when he responded to the reasoning of 'if
a couple has sex, they should be prepared to deal with the consequences',
with "Don't you mean that when a MAN hax sex, HE should be prepared to
deal with the consequences?".  Hats off to him for daring to stare
hypocrisy in the face!

This isn't to say that women don't have to face *any* consequences, but
having the ability to take a short, one-time, $300-500 trip to a clinic to
dispose of one's parental responsibilities before the fact (Heck, everyone's
telling *us* about *our* "parental responsibilities," so why can't *I* use
the same words as being applicable to women?) hardly compares to an 18-24
year "consequence" of $250,000 or more!

Somehow, these "consequences" don't compare...

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

"Gravity: It's more than just a fragrance.  It's the LAW!"
   - Will Steeves, President, GOiDS "R" We, Inc.

 * SLMR 2.1a * Politically incorrect and proud of it!
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism,talk.abortion
From: holzman@d0gslb.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Subject: Re: Muffy becomes anti-choice (absolutely false)
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 23:20:28 GMT
X-Posted-From: d0gslb.fnal.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <MUFFY.92Dec21182007@remarque.berkeley.edu>, 
muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
> Nope.  I consider abortion to be *one way* of "dealing with the
> consequences."  A perfectly fine way, by the way, but not by any means
> the only one.  All I'm saying is that *both* people have do "deal with
> the consequences," not *just* women.

If aborting the fetus is a perfectly fine way for a woman to "deal with the
consequences," why is a parallell for men not a perfectly fine way for men to
"deal with the consequences?"

-- 
Daniel B. Holzman                    | Eight Words the Witch's Rede Fufill:
HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET                  | An It Harm None, Do What You Will
HOLZMAN@FNALC.FNAL.GOV.INTERNET      |
                                     | All Acts of Love and Pleasure are
Love doesn't subtract,               | Her Rituals
   it multiplies    - Heinlein       |
                                     | Speak the Word.
Disclaimer:  Fermilab's far too large to have an opinion, let alone mine.
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism,talk.abortion
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Muffy becomes anti-choice
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 14:35:21 GMT

In article <MUFFY.92Dec21182007@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <1992Dec21.190538.1@d0gslb.fnal.gov> holzman@d0gslb.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman) writes:
>>In article <MUFFY.92Dec18125621@remarque.berkeley.edu>, 
>>muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>> No, you have not "chosen to not reproduce" when you have sex using birth
>>> control.  You have simply chosen to take a "1/5/10/etc percent *chance*
>>> of reproducing" (the actual percentage depends on the type of birth
>>> control chosen and how well you use it).  If you gamble and lose, then
>>> you have to deal with the consequences.
>>> 
>>>>And if the birth control fails, then it's certainly
>>>>a responsible decision to stick with your original choice.
>>> 
>>> Exactly.  The choice of "taking a small chance of reproducing."
>
>>Gee, Muffy, does this mean that you're anti-abortion?
>
>Nope.  I consider abortion to be *one way* of "dealing with the
>consequences."  A perfectly fine way, by the way, but not by any means
>the only one.  All I'm saying is that *both* people have do "deal with
>the consequences," not *just* women.

Since a man can't abort the child, your use of "people" is gender-false.

What exactly do you mean by "deal with the consequences," for men?

Sit down, shut up, and pay?

Or are you in favor of permitting men who use birth control to relinquish
all parental rights and responsibilities (for the cost of an abortion)?

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.polyamory
From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Subject: Re: Ecomasculinism and living
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 04:17:48 GMT

In article <168C4957B.SURGDM@mizzou1.missouri.edu> Diane writes:
>In article <1992Dec21.022449.692@zooid.guild.org>
>Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
> 
>>Well!  What's good for the gander is good for the goose, isn't it?  :-)
>>
>Of course! But watch it Will, you're beginning to sound like a feminist!

I disagree.  Will "sounds" to me like an "Equalist."  He professes
equality and its virtues.  He is not against anyone because of their
gender.  He is not looking for special protection or opportunities
because of his gender.

Some women who assert that they are feminists sound a lot like
equalists to me.  Some don't.  But "feminism" is not the measure for
"equalism," and if you believe so, then I think you are mistaken.
Feminism is about being pro-women.  Nothing wrong with that.  But, just
as some "masculinists" are anti-women, some feminists are anti-men.
And that is problematic.

No, there is a greater mission than "feminism" or "masculinism."  Some
want to refer to this greater cause as being pro-human, regardless of
gender--"humanism."  But that has been around and implies having to read
Proust, something I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy (OK, OK, it's a
leaf, but I don't need or want a three page description of it--Look,
assume that your reader might have seen a frigging leaf before--it's not
such a leap, take my word for it).  Besides, humanism sounds so, so, so
BIOLOGICAL.  This is not about biological morals/values/quality.  It is
about intellectual rights.  Equality is an intellectual right.  It is
the right, most accurate, most precise term.  Therefore, I choose
"equalism."

Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM 
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism,talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Parallel situations
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 05:07:58 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Followup-To: talk.abortion

In <1992Dec30.011753.7937@cs.ucla.edu> gds@york.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner) writes:
>
>It has been said in these newsgroups (and elsewhere) that one reason a
>woman might abort is because she is not financially able to support
>the child if it were to be born, regardless of whether the father
>could support the child.

Again, there's a difference between a right and a reason for exercising that
right.  Her *right* is to control how her body is used.

>Thus, a woman is able to exercise her right
>to abort her financial responsibility if she so chooses.

No, lack of money is one reason she might exercise her right to control
her body.

>If abortions did not destroy fetuses, but instead removed them intact
>from women's bodies and placed them where they could grow to become
>normal, healthy children, the financial responsibility to these
>children would still belong to both of the parents.

It has been said many times previously in this newsgroup (t.a) that the
woman has the right of removal, not the right of destruction.  That the
fetus is not capable of surviving on its own at the time of practically
all abortions is just too bad for the fetus.

(I'm directing followups to talk.abortion only.)
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism,talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Parallell situations (was Re: Muffy becomes anti-choice)
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 18:27:01 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <1992Dec24.181349.2692@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1hb1i8INNf40@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>
>>Unsupported assertion.  Why?  A woman retains the right NOT to legally
>>dissolve all ties, but to REMOVE the fetus from her body.
>
>However, the EFFECT of a successful abortion is NOT ONLY to remove the
>biological dependency, but to also remove the associated financial obligation
>as well. If we parallel the latter, and it would result in more equity.

Minor quibble - there is no financial obligation prior to birth.  As the
citations you posted showed, any financial obligation (even for expenses
incurred prior to birth) is contingent on the birth of a child.  The
effect of a successful abortion is to prevent this child (and any
associated financial obligation) from coming into existance.

>>Upon what basis do you make this unsupported assertion?  What leads you to
>>the conclusion that a woman's right to her physical person is a 'parallell'
>>to a man's control  over his wallet
>
>No-one is saying that. Straw man. A woman's right to terminate her financial
>liability to the child AT THE SAME TIME as her unquestioned (by me, at least)
>right to terminate her biological connection, should be paralleled by the
>right of a man to terminate _his_ financial liability to the child, in
>approximately the time frame.

You're assuming a "right to terminate her financial liability"; it seems
to me that preventing any such liability from coming into being is a side
effect of preventing any child from being born.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: sam@hpsad.sad.hp.com (Vicky Hansen)
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 19:43:05 GMT
Subject: Re: Ann Landers : sex survey
Organization: HP Signal Analysis Division - Rohnert Park, CA
Newsgroups: soc.women

In soc.women, acw4@quads.uchicago.edu ("The Wan-ster") writes:

    Interesting tidbit:

    A few weeks ago,
    Ann Landers wrote in her column:

    -----begin article----------

    	"...On Nov. 4, 1984, I asked the following question:  
    "Would you be content to be held close and treated tenderly
    and forget about "the act"?  Reply YES or NO and add one line -
    'I am over (or under) 40 years of age.' No signature necessary."

    . . .
    
    ----end of article---.

    Now granted, the sample was probably biased as it was only those
    who felt strongly enough about the subject who probably wrote in, as well
    as those who read Ann Landers in the first place.  So, I am curious
    how the guys in the netland (a much less biased population, I am sure :)
    feel about this issue.  Are there any GUYS
    who would answer YES to the question in the survey?

The question sure is hard to interpret.  Due to health problems, my late
husband got to the point where that was all I got.  Was I content with it?
I guess so since I did not badger him about it or go out and find a volunteer
for more.  Would that be my first choice if all options were available:
  1) cuddling only   2) act only   3) neither   4) both
This is another question entirely -- is it what she had in mind?
Xref: sparky soc.women:21965 soc.men:21912 alt.feminism:6640 talk.abortion:53584
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism,talk.abortion
Subject: Home Alone was Re: Parallel situations
Date: 30 Dec 1992 22:11:49 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: aerospace.aero.org

In article <1992Dec30.190954.17494@ncar.ucar.edu> marcia@rap.ucar.edu (Marcia Politovich) writes:
>In article <jay.31.725734979@UUSERV.CC.UTAH.EDU> jay@UUSERV.CC.UTAH.EDU (Jay Deuel) writes:
>
>>
>>P.S. How about the Chicago couple that left their kids "home alone"?
>
>Personally I think they ought to be horsewhipped (I'm serious, too).
>Apparantly a lot of people do this and it's a sad comment on our times.
>
>mkp
>

Perhaps they had seen the movie Home Alone and saw how how well a kid
could do by himself. :-)

Richard Foy
From: jjh00@diag.amdahl.com (Joel Hanes)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: cosmo covers--models too thin?
Date: 21 Dec 92 21:21:51 GMT
Reply-To: jjh00@diag.amdahl.com
Organization: Amdahl Corporation  Sunnyvale California

> Do you men out there truly think that those models are too thin? 

Absolutely.  And too large-breasted, too.
As a matter of fact, I've never seen a Cosmo
cover girl that appealed to me in the slightest --
my invariable reaction is:

   What absurd clothing and hair.  A woman who really
   looks like that, on _any_ occasion, must be both
   stupid and amazingly self-absorbed.


---
Joel Hanes
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism,talk.abortion
From: kartik@hls.com (Kartik Chandrasekhar)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re:Vasectomies
Date: 21 Dec 1992 09:22:54 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

Hi,

Keith Garrard writes:

> Oh Don, how could you or any man even consider getting a vasectomy?
> As a man, I feel that the spermal excrement is at the essence of
> my experience as a man.  Most of the women I used to date really
> enjoyed the excitement of seeing me spray my "love juices" over their
> pulsating bodies.  How a man can even think of depriving himself of
> that pleasure, is beyond me.

	I think your fear is  unjustified.  In a vasectomy only 
the vessels which carry the sperms from the testicles known as the 
'Vas deference' are tied and blocked. 

The body and content of the seminal fluid is mainly provided by other 
glands such as the prostrate which are unaffected by a vasectomy.
Thus you can 'spray' all you want (the same volume) after a vasectomy 
without much of a difference except that you will 'spraying' 'blanks'. 
It does not affect your potency in any other way.

	The above is based on my general reading and I would gladly stand
corrected if somebody with experience or authority in this area
would state otherwise.

	So guys lets not scare the few men who take it upon themselves
to provide a safe (and mostly permanent) method of contraception even 
though it means minor surgery for them.

kartik
From: lmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Laurie Mann)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: cross posting
Date: 30 Dec 1992 18:51:35 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
Reply-To: lmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: ansible.pubs.stratus.com

ELLEN@PURCCVM.BITNET writes
>     I just finished reading all 59 articles in soc.women (it's slow
>this time of year).  I routinely 'markall' posts so they will be removed
>in case I check later and only want to read new posts.  When I exited, I
>noticed that this action had removed 51 posts from soc.men.  So there were
>only 8 genuine posts to soc.women.   Does anyone know how to pre-select for
>dedicated posts, also how to remove certain authors, on vm (not mace)?

Kill files or filters are very helpful.  Or, if you can list the
article titles/authors with your software, it also helps you avoid
the done-to-death topics/authors.

I think routine X-posting needs to be avoided.  I haven't deliberately
X-posted to soc.men in a very long time, but find the endless
X-posts to rave...ahh, talk.abortion much more tiresome.

Happy New Year!

*  In Germany they first came for the Communists, and I didn't speak *
*  because I wasn't a Communist.  Then they came for the Jews, and I *
*  didn't speak because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade *
* unionists, and I didn't speak because I wasn't a trade unionist... *
*Then they came for me--and by that time no one was left to speak up.*
*  Rev. Martin Niemoeller     [Why to March on Washington in April]  *
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,alt.women,soc.men,misc.legal
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: How to Protect Women
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: na 
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 21:18:07 GMT

In <1992Dec21.042405.1584@fulcrum.oz.au> steve@fulcrum.oz.au (Steve Taylor) writes:

>Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:

>>In my humble opinion, IF I were in an abusive relationship, I would LEAVE!  I
>>would never allow it to degrade to a situation where I was in a life and death
>>struggle and was forced to use deadly force in order to prevent someone from
>>using deadly force against me.

>It's not that simple. Leaving can be a risk in itself. Do you have the
>courage to leave when you know that you're risking much more extreme
>violence? Yes, leaving is the right thing to do, but it's no always safe.

It sure isn't. Note that many of the stalking cases were women who
elected to leave an abusive relationship, only to have the abuser
track them down.


>							Steve

REB

Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism,talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Parallel situations
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 93 03:57:17 GMT

In article <1993Jan1.015955.117@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Dec29.210320.9276@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>> Kevin Darcy
>>> Larry Margolis
>>
>>>>Similarly, there is no formal "billing" of pregnancy/child-support costs
>>>>until a child is born, and the paternity award is made, but that doesn't mean
>>>>the charges aren't INCURRED before the child is born.
>>>
>>>The charges are incurred by the woman whether or not a child results; the
>>>man is only obligated to pay a portion of those charges if a child results
>>>and a paternity award is made.  If no child results, then there is no
>>>paternity award, and therefore no financial obligation for the man even
>>>though charges were incurred by the woman.
>>>
>>Minor quibble, just to keep the facts straight...
>>Kevin, the OB types I know all have charges which are paid by the
>>pregnant woman as pre-natal care is administered. Even those with
>>insurance have deductables, co-payments etc. So there most certainly
>>*is* formal billing of pregnancy costs before any child is born.
>
>The issue at hand is whether the man incurs paternity child support liability
>at the point he has sexual intercourse, or later, after the child is born, and
>the paternity award is made.
>
>What you contributed, Mark, while perhaps true, is irrelevant to the issue at 
>hand.
>
Then you were posting irrelevancies when you posted the claim that "there
is no formal "billing" of pregnancy/child support costs until a child
is born"
Nice to see you admit that your arguement is based on irrelevancies
Kevin. :)

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell)
Subject: Re: thermal underpants
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 15:59:06 GMT

In article <168C4E567.SURGDM@mizzou1.missouri.edu> Diane writes:
>In article <1992Dec21.202818.18401@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>
>krw@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (keith.r.smith) writes:
> 
>    <stuff deleted>
> 
>>I compares the "specs" on a number of differrent brands, with their
>>own separate sizing schemes, and determined that a women's small should
>>fit me properly.  I opened a package.  The legs looked long enough,
>>(I stand 5'11") they looked about big enough around in the thighs and
>>in the hips, and the waistband looked just-right!  The only thing missing
>>
>      <more stuff deleted>
> 
>>I can't help but think that _one day_ the folx who make athletic gear
>>(you know, those garments that _have to_ fit men/women of athletic
>>proportions), would get together with the folx that make thermal undies,
>>and a KILLING would be made!
>>
>>What do ya' think, folx?
>>
>>Keith R
> 
>Well Keith, I think you did a very nice job of explaining the women's
>undies in your sock drawer. *Now* how are you going to explain the
>bra and fishnet hose in the box at the bottom of your closet???
>;-)
> 
>Diane

*Roaring Laughter* ( No harm Keith )

Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism,talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Parallel situations
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 21:03:20 GMT

>> Kevin Darcy
> Larry Margolis

>>Similarly, there is no formal "billing" of pregnancy/child-support costs
>>until a child is born, and the paternity award is made, but that doesn't mean
>>the charges aren't INCURRED before the child is born.
>
>The charges are incurred by the woman whether or not a child results; the
>man is only obligated to pay a portion of those charges if a child results
>and a paternity award is made.  If no child results, then there is no
>paternity award, and therefore no financial obligation for the man even
>though charges were incurred by the woman.
>
Minor quibble, just to keep the facts straight...
Kevin, the OB types I know all have charges which are paid by the
pregnant woman as pre-natal care is administered. Even those with
insurance have deductables, co-payments etc. So there most certainly
*is* formal billing of pregnancy costs before any child is born.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism,talk.abortion