HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Can Michal Put Her Money Where Her Mouth Is?
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 14:14:05 GMT

peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>>
>>>>Okay, Michal, you have 6 months to find *either* Rich Payne's
>>>>birth certificate or my son's birth certificate.  Otherwise I
>>>>claim the right to adopt your first child against your wishes.
>>>
>>>An interesting proposition.  What if it is against my husband's 
>>>wishes?
>
>>Both of you can look.
>
>For someone who claims to be a proponent of "male choice" you 
>seem pretty willing to waive away my husband's claim to his (future)
>child.  Just thought I'd point out your hypocracy.

Yes, my interests in equality do portray hippocracy, to coin a word; but 
I don't see any hypocrisy in pointing out the consequences of YOUR position.


Don't forget, YOU proposed that it would be easy to check county records 
in order to preserve parental rights.  You and your husband should be 
motivated to perform the EASY task of finding a public birth record.

Indeed, unlike the single man who would face the task of EASILY checking 
all public records everywhere (according to your position), you now have 
the advantage of your husband's motivated help PLUS some hints.


Go to it, Michal.  Save your children from forced adoption!
Show us how easy you think it is!

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.feminism
From: galt%peruvian.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Greg Alt)
Subject: Re: What feminists believe (was: Re: Male Men Bashers)
Date: 25 Jan 93 14:50:31 MST
Followup-To: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
Organization: University of Utah Computer Science
Distribution: world 

In article <1993Jan25.153141.1270@llyene.jpl.nasa.gov> julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas) writes:
>In article <1993Jan23.201809.730@hellgate.utah.edu> galt%peruvian.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Greg Alt) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan22.093251.30@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>>>>12. Women should be drafted as well, where a draft exists.
>>>
>>>YES.
>>
>>Why is this a feminist issue?  Currently, men's rights are denied by the
>>draft, so you would like women to have the same rights taken away?  That
>>is ridiculous.  To call that a feminist view is even more ridiculous.
>
>Not everyone feels a draft under certain circumstances would be 
>wrong.
>
>Too often, women are denied entry into something and people say
>things to the effect 'it's bad for men so women shouldn't have to
>do it'.  It does no good for women's rights for women to be "protected" 
>from something, even if many people find that something to be bad.

You know, I think that it is unfair that women aren't allowed to die
early from heart attacks.  To make things equal, we should develop
a drug that lowers the life-span of women and force all women to take
it... that way, women will have true equality.

While we're at it, instead of increasing women's salaries to be the
same as men's, let's just cut men's salaries to the level of women's.
And what about rape?  The perfect solution is for more women to rape
more men.

>If women want true equality they must be equal in all ways, including
>times when it may not be much fun.  Including women in a draft is
>very much a feminist issue.  How many times on the net have we heard
>people say that women have it so much better because they don't
>have to worry about a draft or combat positions?  This is then
>often used to justify things like less pay for the same work.  Treating
>women 'better' or in a 'special' manner makes it much easier for
>people to deny them equality in other circumstances.

This is not a case of women being treated "better", but of men being
treated worse. 

I see nothing wrong with letting women into combat.  If they want to
fight, let them.  If they don't want to, don't conscript them.  I would
like to have the same choice.

I find it hard to believe that very many feminists agree with you.  If
they do, you can count me out.
----
Join the Greg Alt boycott! Put /galt/h :j in your killfile today!
----
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: "amy lynn young-leith" <alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: masturbation
Followup-To: alt.sex,alt.sex.masturbation
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 22:13:07 -0500

In article <1993Jan23.171050.9475@lunatix.uucp> kwill@lunatix.uucp (Kelvin Williams) writes:
>	Hello fellas.
>		I have been wanting to ask a question for some time now so 
>here goes.
>	A while back I was put into a very weird situation, I popped a 
>'woody' (had an erection) at work.  I was called into another room (with a 
>woody) on my way a noticed (or my mind was playing tricks on me) that a lot 
>more people were staring at my crotch than usual.  What my question is, is 
>there a way that any man can masturbate (jack-off) without being seen?  Now 
>take into consideration that I work with two more men and a woman in my 
>office.  I know that there would be cum in the pants, but I would rather 
>have cum than be embarrassed again by a hard-on.

Methinks you should try another newgroup, such as alt.sex, or
alt.sex.masturbation (yes, there is one).  

But my suggestion would be visit the restroom.  Just don't make too
much noise and no one will know what you're doing. 

amy
-- 
alyoung@kiwi.indiana.edu	        	Occupation:  Lifetime Student
*****************************************************************************
*This post was made on personal time and has nothing to do whatsoever with  *
*              the attitudes or opinions of Indiana University.             *
*****************************************************************************
Xref: sparky soc.men:23417 alt.abortion.inequity:6752
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Privacy -- and responsibility
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 00:10:44 GMT

In article <1jg5ueINNko7@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>>Well, a woman has a CHOICE over her financial obligation, which she can 
>>exercise for several months after conception. A man has no corresponding 
>>choice. Don't you see the inequity?
>
>But is it any *more* inequitable than giving the man the power to force 
>the woman to abort?  

I don't advocate that position.

>Is it any *more* inequitable that tearing a child away from a parent who 
>wants it?  

I don't advocate that position either. Declining to grant custody doesn't
"tear away" anyone, i.e. destroy existing an existing parent-child 
relationship...

>Is it any *more* inequitable than 
>allowing a child to go without because the NCP doesn't feel like writing
>a check?

I haven't advocated law-breaking either.

Got any more straw men to throw at me, Michal?

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
From: forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu (Eric Forbis )
Subject: Re: Thought experiment
Organization: University of Minnesota
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 02:48:30 GMT

In article <1jmvnbINNco1@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:

>What about the rest of you out there?  Care to offer an opinion?

>Would both parent's consent be required by the FPL?  Or would the
>consent of one person suffice?  

>If the consent of one parent were held to be sufficient, would that
>one person be held solely responsible for the FPL bill?

>Would the second person,if he initially consented, be able to get out 
>of paying his share of the FPL bill by changing his mind after the 
>petri dish was mailed to the FPL?  Would he owe anything to the other
>parent?

If you're offering this as an analogy to your "enslave the men" position, 
try again. This has two men in a nonsexual encounter explicitely agreeing to 
create a child. Your situations often involve a sexual encounter where a 
child may not be at all desired, and contraceptive methods may have 
(supposably) been employed. Hardly analogous.

---------

Eric Forbis      forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu
From: cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: "Bitch of the week" awards
Date: 28 Jan 93 21:58:18 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <93027.153532U53644@uicvm.uic.edu> U53644@uicvm.uic.edu writes:

>.. we have Camille Paglia (a local performance
>artist here in Chicago, and noted lesbian) who stated that any woman who
>dated a man, and was raped by him on a date has nothing to complain about
>because danger is what gives sex excitement.

Camille Paglia of course has said (or written) no such thing. Whatever
else may be thought of her, there is no doubt that the she is good at
expressing herself clearly. What she has exressed surprise at is women
who put themselves into vulnerable and dangerous positions, such as
visiting a guy's bedroom, alone, at 2am, when he is a bit drunk after
a party, and then squeaking with outrage if they get raped. She has
made it quite clear that she does not condone rape in this or any
other situation.  For the mentally impaired she has likened it to
leaving your car unlocked overnight in the city and complaining if it
gets stolen; recommending locking your car is not generally seen as
approval of car theft. One must question the rationality of someone
who complains of car theft and never locks their car.

The interesting question is this: since Paglia has only not said she
approves of date rape, but has actually has spent a lot of air and
journal time trying to correct this silly rumour, just what is going
on in the minds of those who persist in supposing that she condones
rape? Is there a strong need to personify this demonic position? Or
does Paglia's breaking of the feminine mould so upset people that they
have to smear her with this kind of nonsense?


-- 
Chris Malcolm    cam@uk.ac.ed.aifh          +44 (0)31 650 3085
Department of Artificial Intelligence,    Edinburgh University
5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK                DoD #205
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Privacy -- and responsibility
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 20:01:49 GMT

peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>
>>>If men didn't have to pay for children -- if they could have "responsibility 
>>>free" sex and then call it quits when conception occurred....
>
>>We seem to be getting to the heart of your objections, Michal.
>
>>Men have sex, flee the scene, come back for a few privileges,
>>then skip out.  They have no obligations.  Women who use no
>>birth control and then have abortions are bearing responsibilities;
>>men who use birth control which fails are "responsibility-free."
>
>Yes, that is a big part of my argument as pertains to the case where
>no child is born.  If a child *is* born it gets more complicated
>that that because one must consider the rights of the child to be 
>cared for and supported.
>
>I am glad that finally seem to be understanding one another.

Wow.

I am speechless in the face of such unabashed sexism.  At least
it's better than hypocritical sexism.  All IMO.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Xref: sparky soc.men:23376 alt.feminism:7683 soc.singles:38201
From: marcia@netcom.com (Marcia)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism,soc.singles
Subject: Re: The Nice Guy Syndrome (was: Re: Male Men Bashers)
Date: 26 Jan 93 23:31:06 GMT
Organization: The Dolphin Conspiracy, Phase II

In article <1993Jan26.040900.20453@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>  my women friends think that working at microsoft would be great...
>  men, men, men...and the men/woman ratio [we're in MS-DOS/Windows]
>  is good.  But...the intersection of the set of men who are desirable
>  [in terms of personality, interests, etc] with the set of men who
>  are available is usually null.

One more data point in support of "all men are not created equal". For that
matter, nor are all women. Especially when it comes time to look for partners.

I've found that myself: sure, the numbers were GREAT in engineering school,
but I had almost no dates. Why? Because I wasn't interested in them, nor they
in me. I've had a lot better luck with "worse" overall numbers (oh no, here
comes the numbers thread again! :-).

>  Or, if a man is available...it's usually for cause.

Well, I'd say that some are for cause. Some aren't. You never can tell without
finding out more.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marcia Bednarcyk                                  ADDRESSES: marcia@netcom.com
"Sweaty Snugglebunnies."                                     mlb@cisco.com
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
From: garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod)
Subject: Oppression Pay-back
Followup-To: soc.women
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 21:48:12 GMT


Don, O PC-challenged one;

   In view of the centuries of sexist oppression that have been perpetrated
by men on women, do you not feel that as part compensation for the misery
that women have suffered through the ages, women should be allowed to do
as they wish with their own bodies and receive compensation from men for
the hardships of motherhood, regardless of whether never-married, married
or divorced?  And that thus it makes sense for child-support to be set
as high as possible...at least half of a man`s income.  Doesn`t it?

David


:-)  It gets noisy round here sometimes!
Xref: sparky soc.men:23384 soc.women:23140 soc.couples:4947 soc.singles:38224
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 19:49:03 EST
From: Psycho!! <HOLTONS@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,soc.couples,soc.singles
Subject: Re: How Strong Should a Man Be?
 <1993Jan26.223107.24207@Virginia.EDU>


In article <1993Jan26.223107.24207@Virginia.EDU>, llk4k@Virginia.EDU ("Lori
Karalow") says:
>
>Strong enough to get up, get me a beer, hand me the remote and
>make the bed in the morning!


    My dear, did you serriously think that you'd be out of the bed by
morning (or was that not on your list of qualifications)?

    <Well... after saying such blantantly pseudo-macho bullshit, I think
     I may just put on my asbestos shorts so I can be prepared to receive
     what I am obviously asking for...>

*********************************************************************
* Steve Holton             *                                        *
* HOLTONS@QUCDN.QueensU.CA *                                        *
*                          *  Bend, fondle and manipulate.          *
* Queens University        *                                        *
* Canada, eh?              *                                        *
*********************************************************************
Xref: sparky soc.men:23056 alt.abortion.inequity:6628 alt.feminism:7476 alt.dads-rights:3448
From: baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Michal - Who should protect your rights?
Date: 21 Jan 93 20:24:42 GMT
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: BT North America, San Jose CA.

In article <1jl0bpINNkpb@gap.caltech.edu>, peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
|> I would dearly love to have such public records more easily available.
|> A national computerized database of birth and death records would be a 
|> good start. I don't see that this would violate privacy since such 
|> records are already public -- but it would greatly improve access
|> and simplify record-keeping.  Comments anyone?

Since the mother is the only person who can have any chance of knowing who the
father is it must be her responsibility to inform the anyone else 
responsible. Who else could do it but the mother?

-- 
d'baba Duane M. Hentrich	baba@Tymnet.Com

We have yet to learn that the thing uttered in words is not therefore affirmed. It must affirm itself, or no forms of logic or of oath can give it evidence. 
The sentence must also contain its own apology for being spoken. - R.W.Emerson
Xref: sparky soc.men:23237 soc.women:23041
From: albert@hpl.hp.com (Joseph Albert)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Are false accusations harmless? (WAS Re: Drunk Sex = Rape?
Date: 27 Jan 93 22:40:24 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories -- Database Research Group

In article <2524@newsserver.cs.uwindsor.ca> bouche2@server.uwindsor.ca (BOUCHER DAVID            ) writes:
>
>> [....]     i happen to believe that william kennedy
>>smith was guilty of rape.
>
>WHY do you believe that?

i believe this because I believe that the picture of a woman's body with
broken ribs, and black and blue marks was were indeed taken of smith's
accuser.  these pictures were supplied by the police who investigated the
case, and I really believe that they were the real pictures taken. 
unfortunately, the person who took them was inexperienced in this matter
and didn't make sure that something in the picture could later demonstrate
that the were of the woman in question, such as her face. the camera was
pointed in a manner that neither her face nor some other identifiable
marking were in the picture.  

i also believe that an acquittal was the correct decision, given the
available evidence.  just becuase the investigators botched the 
gathering of evidence doesn't mean that we should assume what the
evidence would have been if they ahd done it right.  however, i am
entitled to the opinion that these pictures really were the correct
ones.

i am not jsut forming an opinion from the headlines of tabloids, as
Amy was suggesting people do.

The Rodney King case is a good case in point.  here a jury acquitted
these officers with overwhelmingly convincing evidence of their guilt.
are you saying that i am not entitled to beleive that they were
blatantly guilty just becuase of a not-guilty verdict?

a disturbing question:  why is it that the people who show valid concern
for the potential damage of false accusations, never show any concern
for a legal system which convicts 1 rapist for every 605 reported rapes?

Joseph Albert
albert@hplabs.hp.com
Xref: sparky soc.men:23111 alt.abortion.inequity:6663 alt.feminism:7520 alt.dads-rights:3460
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Michal - Who should protect your rights?
Date: 22 Jan 1993 21:33:08 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

grey@bnr.ca (Grey) writes:

>In article <C1826A.2np@cs.psu.edu>, beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>> 
>> >I would dearly love to have such public records more easily available.
>> >A national computerized database of birth and death records would be a 
>> >good start. I don't see that this would violate privacy since such 
>> >records are already public -- but it would greatly improve access
>> >and simplify record-keeping.  Comments anyone?
>> 
>These are serious problems with the concept of accessibility of information.
>Before going to the trouble of trying to address whether this sort of
>information can be made available in a reasonable and secure manner, do
>you agree that improved access satisfies your right to knowledge of your
>child, or would you argue that the father must be explicitly notified? If
>the latter is the case, there's no point in pursuing the privacy issue further?

I think that improved acccess to public records should suffice.  If a
man is worried about paternity the improved access would allow him to 
easily confirm his paternity or else put his concerns to rest.

Don?
-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Impressive amounts of material can be accreted in this manner.
Xref: sparky soc.men:23383 soc.women:23139
From: pepke@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Male Men Bashers
Date: 26 Jan 93 23:55:22 GMT
Reply-To: pepke@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: Florida State University, but I don't speak for them

In article <1993Jan21.222612.6430@adobe.com> kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall) writes:
>1) If you're a self-centered jerk, you'll get plenty of dates but no
>   relationships.
>
>2) If you're an honest, caring person (oops, I changed the wording!), you
>   will most likely find a life-long companion if you turn your attention
>   away from the low-self-esteem women who are still looking toward the
>   self-centered jerks.

It seems to me that you are talking about descriptions of reality and advice.
Correct me if I'm wrong.  I was talking about messages, which do not 
necessarily have anything to do with reality and frequently don't.

As the other guy said, whether this is a good or a bad deal depends on whether
one wants a life-long companion or not.  One message that men get is that they
are supposed to find life-long companions and be totally loyal.  However, 
another message is that being in a long-term relationship is a sign of 
weakness.

Another question is whether finding a "life-long companion" means that you will
get to be around him or her more than a year or two.  The divorce statistics
seem to indicate that this is not likely to be the case.

>  Thanks to the women's movement 8-> more women
>   care about their own happiness and quality of life and do not resign
>   themselves to the hanging-onto-the-first-jerk-they-find-because-they-are
>   afraid-they'd-never-find-anyone-else-and-they-are-nothing-without-a-man
>   syndrome.

My observations indicate that most women make this transition as they get 
older.  However, my observations of successive generations don't indicate
any real improvement between the generations.

Frankly, I think that the world would be a much better place if you were 
correct, and I would be willing to listen to suggestions about how to 
encourage them.  However, I don't see that anything which is in place is
really effecting much of a change.  Women get a lot of conflicting messages,
too.

-EMP
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
From: gds@york.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Male Men Bashers
Originator: gds@york.cs.ucla.edu
Reply-To: gds@cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner)
Organization: in your face!
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 07:41:05 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.030043.22552@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>I see it differently to some degree.  In my parents' circle of
>friends, it would be disastrous to be single (or widowed) since they
>all come in pairs.  However, in my circle of friends, there are so
>many alternate relationships that you don't have a husband, a wife,
>and 2 kids as being the typical situation.  Sometimes just changing
>your circle of friends can help in how you feel about your own
>non-paired life.

The friends I'm talking about are happy in the company of their (our)
friends (not all of whom are paired off).  They also have diverse
interests.  They just haven't found a significant other among the
people they encounter in these activities.

>As to the number of people you know who would make a good partner, are
>there any obvious good fits there?  You may want to introduce them to
>each other.

Nothing has ever come of the introductions I've made of my friends to
others who I thought would be compatible.  Either there was no
chemistry, or they were (mutually) too busy to get together, or they
lived too far away from each other.

--gregbo
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.dads-rights