HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 05:34:26 GMT

In article <VIXIE.92Jul27184646@cognition.pa.dec.com> vixie@pa.dec.com (Paul A Vixie) writes:
>I would ordinarily not dignify this article with a reply, but since I chose
>to respond to one of Mr. EuStress's articles it would be rude of me to sit
>out the resulting flame fest.
>
>[vix]
>> No.  Every human has a choice of who he will or will not *create*.
>
>[kelvin]
># Wrong!!! If a woman is pregnant *she* has a choice to carry to term
># and create, or terminate the pregnacy trhough abortion and not create;
># the man has *no* such choice at that point. Given this, he at least should
># have the right to declare his intent to contribute or not contribute to
># the childs care and upbringing, and let the woman decide if she wants to
># go it alone or not.
>
>once a woman is pregnant, she has choices and options which have no parallel
>for the man.  

Wrong. Only SOME of the choices have no parallel. The choice being discussed
here -- the choice about child support liability -- is exactly parallel,
except that she gets to make his economic choice FOR him, without any input 
or right of appeal. It's a breach of trust resulting in involuntary
servitude.

Let her do what she wants with her body. But decide the liability issues
according to established common law principles, please. No strange 
statutory exceptions. No Big Brother interference in my sex life or
reproductive decisions. Thanks.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
From: vixie@pa.dec.com (Paul A Vixie)
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Organization: DEC Network Software Lab
	<VIXIE.92Jul26161023@cognition.pa.dec.com>
	<1992Jul27.213256.25280@colorado.edu>
Date: 27 Jul 92 18:46:46

I would ordinarily not dignify this article with a reply, but since I chose
to respond to one of Mr. EuStress's articles it would be rude of me to sit
out the resulting flame fest.

[vix]
> No.  Every human has a choice of who he will or will not *create*.

[kelvin]
# Wrong!!! If a woman is pregnant *she* has a choice to carry to term
# and create, or terminate the pregnacy trhough abortion and not create;
# the man has *no* such choice at that point. Given this, he at least should
# have the right to declare his intent to contribute or not contribute to
# the childs care and upbringing, and let the woman decide if she wants to
# go it alone or not.

once a woman is pregnant, she has choices and options which have no parallel
for the man.  the current basis for her having these choices at all is that
there are some intimate and dangerous things that go on in her body to turn
a fetus into a baby.  i'm not going to argue here and now about whether that
basis is a good one.  i will only point out that it is the one currently in
force and that it does not apply to the man/father at all.

_before_ pregnancy occurs, both "parents" have the same choices.

_after_ birth occurs, both "parents" have the same responsibilities.

what exactly are you asking for here?  something seems inequitable but every
time i try to understand it it squirms out of sight.

[vix]
> Now stop whining and get your shoulder to the wheel.

[kelvin]
# If you are so gungho, why dont you do it for him?

i've got my own wheel.
--
Paul Vixie, DEC Network Systems Lab	
Palo Alto, California, USA         	"Don't be a rebel, or a conformist;
<vixie@pa.dec.com> decwrl!vixie		they're the same thing, anyway.  Find
<paul@vix.com>     vixie!paul		your own path, and stay on it."  -me
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel)
Subject: Re: soc.feminism
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 15:20:02 GMT

dswartz@redondo.sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber) writes:

>In article <1992Jul30.231823.29183@ccu.umanitoba.ca> kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca 
>(K\
>enneth John Aarts) writes:
>>One of the moderators soc.feminism told me that they had very few complaints
>>about the way that group is moderated.  I found that surprising.

>Oh, you too?  Actually, given the problem with expecting an honest,
>unbiased self-criticism from most people, I'm not sure that the number
>of complaints they admit to is a useful metric (I'm not questioning
>anyone's veracity, it's just that few people think of themselves as
>evil, wrong, misguided, etc...  there are always rationalizations).
>And even if that metric was reliable, I'm not sure it would means much,
>because at lot of folks, if they got a posting rejected, would just
>say "Oh, screw them!" and forget about it.

In my naive way I tried twice to post there. (Yes, I'm an optimist)
Of course, my comments were rejected, as they do not fit comfortably 
into the mold of that forum; I tend toward meta-commentary, I am told, 
a term that connotes observations on the nature of the exchange.

A moderator of a newsgroup tends to exhibit the unconscious arrogance
of power, that peculiar behavior one finds in small bureaucrats who
are doing things by the book, and are genuinely unable to see why their
behavior is infuriating to the public they are supposedly serving.

Of course, there are also control queens, as jealous of their prerogatives
as any 5-year-old with a chocolate bunny, in STella's memorable phrase.

I realize that reading a moderated newsgroup is like reading The Plain
Truth: a party organ with clear biases and little room for truly
divergent opinions. It keeps things cozy, I suppose.

Frankly, the only thing that bothers me about the arrangement is the fact
that the moderators post freely on the newsgroup they supposedly moderate.
This is akin to a televised debate in which the moderators begin to expound
on their own, occasionally drowning out the participants: ludicrous, offensive,
and an obvious conflict of interest.

Regards,
       H. Biesel s.N.a.
From: stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Date: 28 Jul 92 22:09:24 GMT
Distribution: na

In article <VIXIE.92Jul27184646@cognition.pa.dec.com> vixie@pa.dec.com (Paul  
A Vixie) writes:

+ _before_ pregnancy occurs, both "parents" have the same choices.

Bullshit. The man has absolutely no say in the matter. None. Nada. Zip.
But he by damn sight better cough up the cash when the woman decides
*unilaterally* to be a mamma.

K'Char
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: Do Women Really Want Higher-Earning Men as Partners?
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 00:52:38 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <2238NB2w164w@cellar.org> revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano) writes:
>> 
>        Now, could you please explain where you made this assumption that I'm 
>a Socialist? Or are you resorting to the same Red-baiting tactics that 
>embarassed you on sci.skeptic? (Or are people who have the temerity to 
>disagree with you automatically resentment-filled Socialists?)
>

Because I've been arguing with you for at least six months, Brian, and
I know that your idea of cool politics is "The Nation," Chomsky, and
"progressivism."


(And having certain Politically Correct types foam at the mouth at one
does not constitute an "embarassment!")
-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!

       "Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on this planet.
        Then all things are at risk. It is as when a conflagration has
        broken out in a great city, and no man knows what is safe, or
        where it will end."
                               - Emerson: Essay, "Circles"
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Torn between Mother and Wife.
Date: 28 Jul 92 00:46:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Bop-bop-aloo-bop-a-bing-bang-bong
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

(Steve Taormina) writes:

>My mother doesn't like my wife and vice versa. My wife is a down-home
>country girl from a loving paycheck to paycheck family.  My mother 
>considers them fat, sloppy, hicks and feels that I could have done 
>much better.  My Mother is wealthy, conceited, and judgemental.  Problem 
>is, she's my mother and I still love her and want to associate with her.

Well Steve, here's my 2 cents:

It seems clear your mother (in some way) doesn't want to let
go of her hold on her. Your mother probably considers your
wife a threat to her authority in some way, most probably
because she (your mother) wants to be the most important female
in your life and she wants validation to prove it, even if it
makes others (i.e., your wife) uncomfortable.

>You may be wondering if I told my wife about all this.  Are you kidding?
>I think she would be too hurt and very angry.  Anybody out there feel that
>I should tell my wife?

NO WAY, Jose. The housewarming gift story you relate seems
to me to be part of the same thing. Perhaps your mother and
maybe to a lesser extent, your wife, are using you to communicate
with each other. 

This of course, puts you in a no-win situation and makes you the
bad guy, because you are now always the bearer of bad news while
at the same time (maybe) feeling that you have to defend the one
from the other.

If one has a problem with the other, let *them* deal with it,
to drag you in like that is completely unfair, refuse to listen:
say: Well, I really think you are talking to the wrong person"

I believe you have to stop playing this role immediately. Both
women in your life need to know that there relationship should
not exist exclusively through you.

Your mother must learn that although she is your mother, your
wife has to come first (my opinion). If that lesson is painful
(and how could it not be?) than you will be there to help her,
but I see that as the only way out.

I think it is important that you tell essentially the same thing
to your wife (i.e., that she come first), but that your wife`s
relationship to your mother is something that needs to exist
independently of you to some degree.

To have one cut down the other and use you as the messenger
boy helps no one. With any luck, maybe you can help them
take responsibility for their feelings and actions.

Good Luck,

Dano
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Erections and Ejaculations: Speaking the unspeakable
Date: 21 Jul 92 19:38:16 GMT
Reply-To: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <1992Jul21.174336.12135@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> me@isnext4.msu.edu (My Account) writes:
>I have long felt that Western culture focuses to much on the penis and 
>ejaculation.  Surely there is much more to a man's sexuality than that.  

	Yeah, there's turning over and going to sleep when you're done.
Xref: sparky soc.men:13648 soc.women:14031 alt.censorship:6206 talk.politics.misc:35618 alt.folklore.urban:19607 misc.legal:14724
From: jheath@CERIS.Purdue.EDU (Jim Heath)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,alt.folklore.urban,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Ed Nilges and Snuff Films?
Date: 23 Jul 92 19:37:05 GMT
Organization: Center for Environmental and Regulatory Information Systems, Purdue University

From article <1992Jul22.210407.19766@news.media.mit.edu>, by tsmaster@media.mit.edu (David LeCompte):
> In article <1992Jul22.050251.25566@news.eng.convex.com> datri@convex.com (Anthony A. Datri) writes:
>>>You've been reading too much MacKinnon.  No such thing as snuff films.
>>>At least, none have ever been documented.
>>
>>It may be a stretch, but I recently saw a program on a local public station
>>that included explicit footage from the Holocaust.
> 
> It is a stretch.
> 
> The criterion to remember is that the murder is planned *for* the
> film. i.e. if the camera runs out of film/batteries/swill the murder
> would be postponed until it would be possible to film.
> 
> Unless you are alleging that the Holocaust was created with a really
> killer (ooh, sorry!) PBS documentary in mind, it's not a snuff film.
>

Does anyone know why the Nazis filmed so many of their war
crimes?  I presume the thought of the film being used as evidence
never crossed their minds in the early years because they thought
they would win.  Was it so Adolf and his cronies could see that
their orders were being carried out? 
-- 
"Land of song, said the warrior bard,           Jim Heath
Though all the world betrays thee.
One sword, at least, thy rights shall guard, (The Minstrel Boy)
One faithful harp will praise thee."         (Thomas Moore)
Xref: sparky soc.men:13711 soc.women:14090 alt.censorship:6272 alt.politics.correct:4834
From: revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.censorship,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: P.C. Professors Try to Censor Anti-Feminist Book
Keywords: Paglia's "Sexual Personae"
Date: 24 Jul 92 23:50:25 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system

aviksroy@athena.mit.edu (Avik S. Roy) writes:

> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
> 
> ) You might find it fun to read what Carol Tavris has had to say
> ) about alleged biological sex differences. She successfully debunks a
> ) lot of myths about supposed gender differences, IMO. And if she fails,
> ) I would like to know in gory detail how she goes wrong. Unsupported
> ) accusations of Political Correctness will be held to demonstrate the
> ) weakness of the criticism.
> 
> Who is Carol Tavris?  Are we talking about a book, or articles?
> The nice thing about discussing whether or not gender differences are "suppos
> is that they are grounded in scientific study and can't be deconstructed out 
> political whim.  Can you share with us some of Carol Tavris' assertions on ge
> differences?

        Carol Tavris is the author of the cuurently in-print "The Mismeasure 
of Woman," a general overview of the various claims of gender differences. 
It's a current nonfiction hardback, available at most bookstores.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian "Rev. P-K" Siano                                  revpk@cellar.org
Xref: sparky soc.men:13835 soc.women:14263 alt.child-support:2279 alt.dads-rights:1631 alt.abortion.inequity:2714
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Right to not support
Date: 29 Jul 92 04:35:17 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: soc.women
Organization: The Piranha Club

In article <nancyo.712373787@sfu.ca> nancyo@fraser.sfu.ca 
(Nancy Patricia O'Connor) writes:
>We live in a society where DNA testing should eliminate this
>uncertain paternity, and it would thus be (if he is able)
>in the father's best interest to support his child.

Thank you so much for deciding for other people what are their
best interests; I don't know what all those stupid men would 
do without the help of women like you...
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
From: irvine@ntmtv.UUCP (Chuck Irvine)
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 22:45:27 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.185128.12408@chpc.org>, rboudrie@chpc.org (Rob Boudrie) writes:
|> In article <PLgRoB2w164w@dogear.spk.wa.us> root@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick   ) writes:
|> >jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress) writes:
|> >
|> >> > She will not get money from me!!! -- archaic quote from Mr. EuStress
|> >> > Stick to your opinions, but let's try to be objective. Ok? -- Bob Kirkpatri
|> 
|> I don't have any kids, but none the less I am offended when I hear the
|> frequent comments from divorced women like :
|> 
|> (1)  Thank god I had those kids; they're my meal ticket.  If I didn't
|> have them, I would have to look for a job and worry about being laid off -
|> at least I have my ex husband's savings and retirement accounts as a buffer
|> in the event he loses his job.
|> 
|> (2)  I need more money for my kid  and my cheap ex husband won't give it
|> to me (though he is up to date on all support payments equialing approx 50%
|> of take home pay).  No, I can't look for a job, or even accept work if it
|> is offered, since my attorney has advised me I need to look "unemployable
|> while raising child" for the final settlement hearing.
|> 
|> (3)  We're off to the carribean for vacation (said by a couple which is living
|> together, but she is collecting a couple of years of "alimony" (in addition
|> to child support) to help her adjust to being "on her own").
|> 
|> 
|> Most divorced fathers I know (a goodly number) want to take care of their
|> kids, but are justifiably upset that the concept of child support has
|> become "support of non working mother", even after the child is old enough
|> for the mother to accept a job.
|> 

My wife (soon ex) didn't work outside the house during our marriage and we have
one 3 year old daughter. I'm sure she won't go to work until she absolutely has to
and I will hate to see her sponging off my daughter (and indirectly me).

Are there states that put a cap on the amount of child support a NCP has to
provide? Do most states just use a formula that is a function of the parents
combined incomes. Does anyone know in particular about MO and KS, i.e. what
their guidelines are?

It seems like it would at least be fair to allow NCPs to have a hand in deciding
how funds should be spent above some cap. For example, all money paid over some
ceiling should go into a trust to be distributed after the child reaches college
age, etc.

Chuck Irvine
ames!ntmtv!irvine
From: ABBST@vms.cis.pitt.edu
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: What's your KQ?
Date: 30 Jul 92 17:31:00 GMT

>I know someone who tried for over 6
>years to get his degree only to pretty much say, "Fuck it,"

Me too.  I think it was John Belushi's character in Animal House.
"Six years of college down the drain!" -- Bluto

Al
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity
From: fedrick@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Kelvin W. Fedrick)
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 05:02:05 GMT

In article <exukjb.26.712417719@exu.ericsson.se> exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
>If I am correct in holding that children do have this right, then the
>biological parent(s) has a correlative duty not to *be* UNINVOLVED. Or does 
>being uninvolved work to nullify the initial obligation? How does mere
>unwillingness to fulfill an obligation initiated by one's voluntary choice 
>serve to nullify it?

 What voluntary choice!? I think that the whole point of this was that
 it was *not* the voluntary choice of the man to become a father and
 there is a viable, legal alternative to this happening, abortion. If
 the woman choses not to have an abortion the man has *involutarily*
 become a father.

>If I promise to pay a dept I owe you, then I should pay you the dept,
>unless conditions obtain that justify nullifying my promise

 Again, what promises are you refering to? Did I miss something in one
 of the previous postings?

>However, one caveat to this. I do see something very like your 'deep pocket' 
>mentality at work when a biological father is forced to pay child support in 
>the case where the child is now being cared for by the mother and a new 
>father, where there is now a new father who can provide. It seems to me that 
>in these circumstances, if the child's father no longer wants to support 
>those children, and the children are being taken care of by new parents, the 
>real father should not to be forced to pay.  If that was the point your 
>last post, then I sympathize.

 We don't need sympathy, we need CHANGE!

-kelvin
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Sex Discrimination in the Death Penalty?
Date: 22 Jul 92 21:51:07 GMT
Reply-To: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <1992Jul22.104724.1@acad3.alaska.edu> fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks) writes:
>Anyway, women have been killing men while they sleep throughout the ages.  
>To decide whether they were moral in doing it, one has to look at the 
>reasoning behind the act, not the method

	BWAHAHAHAA!!!!   Holy Lady Macbeth!  .15 Rasmussens!!

	Allen R Sparks, *you* are a complete moron.

	Try this on for size:

"Anyway, men have been killing women while they sleep throughout the ages.  
To decide whether they were moral in doing it, one has to look at the 
reasoning behind the act, not the method."

	Oh, woops, there I go forgetting that those nasty danglers deserve
anything they get...
								W.rat


Newsgroups: soc.men
From: cherkaue@ee.rochester.edu (Brian Cherkauer)
Subject: Re: A feminist style socio-economic reform!!
Organization: Univ of Rochester, College of Engineering and Applied Science
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 17:39:37 GMT

In article <1992Jul19.055707.22310@lugb.latrobe.edu.au> AGRSS@LURE.LATROBE.EDU.AU (SUBBAIAH,Santharam) writes:
>REFORM 1.
>	"All women who deliver normal children should be compensated in
>monetory terms for their child bearing services".

>RATIONALE:
[...]
>The supreme court in South Australia ruled (about a year ago) 
>that the mother who met with an accident because of her careless driving
>(when she was pregnant) should pay compensation to her daughter who was
>injured (when she was in her mother's womb) during that accident. Applying
>the logic followed by that court, a women can jolly well ask for payment 
>from the society for her services during the pregnancy (considering pain and 
>discomfort as service), especially when the child happens to be a normal 
>and healthy child.


Let's see here.  You and I could be sitting in a bar having a beer and
chatting.  At some point in the conversation, I could turn to you and
punch you in the face, knocking out a few teeth.  Shortly thereafter,
a court would most likely decide that I should pay you compensation
for your injuries.  Applying the logic followed by that court, I can
jolly well ask for payment from you for not punching you in the face.

May I assume the check's in the mail?

-Brian
  cherkaue@ee.rochester.edu

Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support