HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: adoption rules
Date: 24 Jan 1993 01:42:21 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

>peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

>Now, Michal, what do *you* propose?

Don, I've thought about it alot this weekend.  I've concluded that 
the *good* of protecting the father's right to stop an adoption is not
worth the *bad* of subjecting the mother and child to the risk of 
injury from an abusive father.  Thus I cannot condone a legal 
requirement for paternal notification.  
-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Impressive amounts of material can be accreted in this manner.
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell)
Subject: Re: Gender Discrimination
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 01:36:30 GMT

In article <728089413@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>#   Assuming these news reports are correct, I think it's outrageous
>#   that the Clinton Administration is starting off with such a 
>#   sexist prologue.  Not to mention the fact that the nation can
>#   hardly be well-served by potentially denying half (or probably
>#   more because most lawyers are men) of the otherwise qualified
>#   candidates merely due to their gender. 
>
>In article <147772@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> 
>lisa@zeppelin.llnl.gov (Lisa Corsetti) writes:
>
>>How does it feel?
>
>Like REAL equality, feminists' style.
>
>>- Lisa
>
>Hillel                                    gazit@cs.duke.edu
>
>"Y'know .. REAL equality, REAL paybacks to women for being turned into
>what they are by society would involve switching places and making men
>the 2nd class citizens for the next 3000 years or so."  --  Jeanette Dravk

Last I heard Clinton refused to hold the post for any particular gender or
group.  Whats the beef?

Steve R

Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: Re: Duck and Jive (was Re: Pre-Sex Contract)
Organization: mydog in exile
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 16:03:51 GMT

This has become, essentially, yet another item in the the
perennial welfare argument, and no longer belongs in the
present newsgroups -- in my opinion.  Carole's story is
valid if the welfare queen myth has truth in it, and not 
otherwise.

My basic contention has been that there are alternatives to
individual responsibility for fatherhood (or other
contributions to the results of reproductive behavior)
besides dumping the whole burden on those who happen to have
female bodies and aren't quick enough on the uptake to get
an immediate abortion unless they have in hand an armor-
plated contract from someone to support the outcome.
Hillel thinks that would mean we would all start breeding off 
the bottom and collapse socially.  I suggest we agree to
disagree until the next great talk.politics.* welfare circus
comes to town.

I've also taken exception to the way in which the issue of
paternal responsibility has been discussed -- very largely
without any concern for the well-being of the possible 
children involved or the community as a whole.  This is a
criticism of all ideological positions, _pace_ Will Steeves.

In fact, I think it's more of a criticism of feminists,
since I expect them to be intelligent and perceptive,
especially about social issues -- much more than I do their
opponents.  In fact, it's been my disappointment with the
feminist contributions that got me into this thread.
-- 

 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Subject: Re: Drunk Sex = Rape ? (was Re: Mysogynist
Organization: Aston University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL241235]
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 15:38:37 GMT

Elias Israel - SunSelect Engineering (eisrael@klingon.East.Sun.COM) wrote:
: In article 7956@news.cs.indiana.edu, alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu (amy lynn young-leith) writes:
: >If you've spent the whole evening with someone, and they've had one
: >glass of wine, my bet is they aren't drunk.  
: 
: The problem is that this isn't always a safe bet. I've heard more than one
: "authority" on rape (including the head of the Women's Rape Counseling Center
: in D.C., whose name unfortunately escapes me) claim that a woman who realizes
: in the morning that she probably didn't want to have sex (or wouldn't have if
: she'd thought about it some more) has been raped. What this amounts to is
: the ability to retroactively rescind consent.

Is this ability desirable?
(after all this is a great way to avoid responsibility for making mistakes.
which after all prevents people from actually LEARNING not to make the
same mistake in future)

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Evans                                   |evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 429 9199  (Home)                    |evansmp@cs.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 359 6531 x4039 (Office)             |
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.dads-rights
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Can Michal Put Her Money Where Her Mouth Is?
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 22:51:54 GMT

frank@austin.ibm.com (F. Karner) writes:
>
>In article <C1D3JI.72M@cs.psu.edu>, beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>> 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.

>By the way, does "hippocracy" mean government by the hippopotami?  Is
>there a hidden message here? :-)

I was referring to hippocratic principles.

Rule by horses seems more appropriate to the 19th century midwest --
although given the Elephant and Donkey parties' treatment of principles
like sexual equality, perhaps a Horse will make a suitable alternative.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Privacy -- and responsibility
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 20:25:49 GMT

In article <1jnklfINNl1v@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>
>>In article <1jkhsiINNese@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>>
>>>Not so.  According to The Economist (Christmas issue, 1992) usually the 
>>>woman's standard of living drops after divorce.  Often that of the man 
>>>rises.
>
>>So what?  The salient question is this:
>
>>	Did her standard of living <rise> when she got married?  If so, then
>>	she has <returned> to her former standard of living, and has not
>>	been screwed in any way.
>
>No, actually the salient question would be: how does her post-divorce
>standard of living compare to (1) what her standard of living would
>be in the present if she had never married; and (2) what her standard
>of living would be in the present if she had stayed married.

I think that (1) sounds valid, but (2) is not as the topic you used was
"post-divorce standard of living", and (2) specifies that she "stayed 
married".
 
>Unfortunately, as with most "what-if"s, the answers to this question
>is impossible to ascertain.

But oddly, many similar ifs are accepted uncritically as fact when
the subject is sexism/racism. That is, rather than posing "what-if"
questions, statements life -if not for racism/sexism <group-member>
would have <success/etc>-. Well, maybe so, but maybe not. It does not
necessarily follow.

And groups facing similar obstacles have done quite well, asians
for example.

>
>                                                --  Michal
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Impressive amounts of material can be accreted in this manner.


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Privacy -- and responsibility
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 21:46:49 GMT

In article <1jkh05INNegv@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>>In article <1jfln7INNehp@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>>The assumption that a child has a right to be supported by both its parents.
>>>Is that sexist?
>
>>Yes! Compared to the results obtained by regular application of (fault-based)
>>legal liability principles, the statutes bestow a windfall on women, and exact 
>>a corresponding penalty from men. Sexism, pure and simple.
>
>The statutes are intended to support children, not bestow a windfall on women.

Awww, come on Michal. Do you not remember the mothers who sued for $30,000
a month for child support, after getting half the company, and more, and
won? There were several similar cases posted not long ago where the guys
got taken to the cleaners, and most women who posted thought it was fair.
I seem to recall that you though that it was OK, or something similar.

>Perhaps they are failing in their intent.  

Or perhaps that is not their intent at all.

>                                        Or perhaps it is the execution of
>the statutes that has failed.  I tend to think it is the latter.  Perhaps 
>implementing better accounting of the current system (each set of parents 
>pays for own children, where possible) would improve things.  Several 
>proposals for such accounting are under discussion in soc.men.  I prefer to 
>try to fix the current ssystem rather than adopting a more socialistic 
>system.  Let's not throw the baby out witht he bathwater!
 
How can you say that $30,000/month child support, plus $10K/month 
for entertainment, and the other examples of rediculous charges 
(for child support anyway) are just failures of the current system?
 
 
>                                                --  Michal
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Impressive amounts of material can be accreted in this manner.


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: soc.men
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Subject: Re: Drunk Sex = Rape ? (was Re: Mysogynist Bullshit)
Organization: Aston University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL241235]
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 12:14:56 GMT

amy lynn young-leith (alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu) wrote:
: Karl, you took this post out of context/
: 
: In article <C15p04.BDz@ddsw1.mcs.com> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
: >In article <1993Jan19.205938.7956@news.cs.indiana.edu> "amy lynn young-leith" <alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu> writes:
: >>You meet a woman at a bar, and for the two and a half hours you are
: >>there, she has six drinks.  Or you're at a frat party, and she's been
: >>slamming back beers all evening.  Is it REALLY that hard to tell, or
: >>have a good educated guess, as to whether this person is drunk or not?
: >>These two instances are where the problems with alcohol and consent
: >>happen.  
: >
: >If, however, that woman goes outside, gets in her car, and drives, then
: >society holds her FULLY responsible for the consequences.  
: >But if she gets in bed with a man the MAN is responsible for the
: >consequences, including being charged with rape!
: 
: I have said in the past that this isn't fair and shouldn't be.  A
: woman should not be able to turn around the next day and go, 'Oh, I
: know at the time I said I wanted to, but I was drunk...'  I made the
: simple suggestions that perhaps a man should, just for the sake of
: protecting his ass in this day and age, not sleep with drunk women he
: doesn't know.  Someone replied that this was hard to tell.  To which I
: replied the above. 

However if the woman in question is likely to behave in such a way is
it not also quite possible that she will make a false accusition of
rape, if the man in question dares refuse to have sex with her.

: 
: >There's something wrong here.  If you can give consent to drive (which you
: >obviously can) then you ought to be able to give consent to make love.  I do
: >not accept that women should be "protected" from this decision any more than
: >I accept that men should be (and yes, this means that if I consent while
: >drunk to homosexual sexual relations, and find that I did something stupid
: >the next day, that I feel it is my problem and not the other party's)
: 
: I agree with this.  Pay attention to the thread next time and not
: individual messages. 
: 
: amy
: -- 
: alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu for personal mail
: 			    All business mail to alyoung@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
:              I.U. probably doesn't agree with me.  I don't speak for
:                     them so it doesn't matter, now does it? 

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Evans                                   |evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 429 9199  (Home)                    |evansmp@cs.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 359 6531 x4039 (Office)             |
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism,alt.dads-rights
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Rights, Burdens, Communication
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 22:04:04 GMT

In article <1jkuu2INNk68@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
)payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
)
)>In article <1jhkgsINN7sn@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
)>>A man has a right to stop his child from being given up for adoption.
)
)>Actually, as I understand it, he has no such right, unless he is married.
)
)Not so.  I recently described a case in which an unmarried father was 
)suing to reverse an adoption, several years after the fact, claiming that 
)he had only recently found out about the existance of the child.  The
)mother had claimed another man was the father, and that other man had
)OK'd the adoption.  The case is pending the results of DNA testing to 
)determine which man is the biological father.

When (if) they actually give (custody of) the child back to him, I'll be
somewhat impressed.  'case pending' doesn't mean much.


Newsgroups: soc.men
From: "amy lynn young-leith" <alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Drunk Sex = Rape ? (was Re: Mysogynist Bullshit)
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 18:06:43 -0500

Karl, you took this post out of context/

In article <C15p04.BDz@ddsw1.mcs.com> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>In article <1993Jan19.205938.7956@news.cs.indiana.edu> "amy lynn young-leith" <alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu> writes:
>>You meet a woman at a bar, and for the two and a half hours you are
>>there, she has six drinks.  Or you're at a frat party, and she's been
>>slamming back beers all evening.  Is it REALLY that hard to tell, or
>>have a good educated guess, as to whether this person is drunk or not?
>>These two instances are where the problems with alcohol and consent
>>happen.  
>
>If, however, that woman goes outside, gets in her car, and drives, then
>society holds her FULLY responsible for the consequences.  
>But if she gets in bed with a man the MAN is responsible for the
>consequences, including being charged with rape!

I have said in the past that this isn't fair and shouldn't be.  A
woman should not be able to turn around the next day and go, 'Oh, I
know at the time I said I wanted to, but I was drunk...'  I made the
simple suggestions that perhaps a man should, just for the sake of
protecting his ass in this day and age, not sleep with drunk women he
doesn't know.  Someone replied that this was hard to tell.  To which I
replied the above. 

>There's something wrong here.  If you can give consent to drive (which you
>obviously can) then you ought to be able to give consent to make love.  I do
>not accept that women should be "protected" from this decision any more than
>I accept that men should be (and yes, this means that if I consent while
>drunk to homosexual sexual relations, and find that I did something stupid
>the next day, that I feel it is my problem and not the other party's)

I agree with this.  Pay attention to the thread next time and not
individual messages. 

amy
-- 
alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu for personal mail
			    All business mail to alyoung@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             I.U. probably doesn't agree with me.  I don't speak for
                    them so it doesn't matter, now does it? 
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: Male Men Bashers
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 21:11:22 GMT

In article <11796@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> pepke@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke) writes:
>In article <1993Jan21.154913.15976@aston.ac.uk> evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans) writes:
>>> (I write a description of "nice guy syndrome.")
>>An assumption here that everone wants a long term partner..
>
>I am making no such assumption; I am merely describing a particular message
>about percieved causal relationships.

Sometimes it seems that, these days, to seek a "long term" relationship
is seen as a sign of weakness, an admission that one seeks to "lock in" a rare
opportunity. Or at least, I have heard women say things to IMPLY that:
one woman says to another, "Oh, XXX who I used to go with is such a
jerk; he wants to get married and have kids, hahahahahahah!"

But even if a "nice guy" gets the long-term relationship he wants, there's
no reason to assume that he'll get what he has been waiting for. There
are plenty of women out there who say to themselves, "Well, this guy really
is much too *nice* to be interesting, but on the other hand I DO want to
get married and have kids, I DO want a higher standard of living, etc., so
I'll marry the fool. And if he doesn't like how he's treated, that's 
just tough!"

And, of course, he'll be far too much of a Nice Guy to complain much, or
take any effective action. But perhaps, after enough time passes, he'll
wise up. 

-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!


     "Mystical explanations are considered deep. The truth is that
      they are not even superficial."

                   - Friedrich Nietzsche    (The Gay Science: 126)
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod)
Subject: Re: adoption rules
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 20:53:36 GMT

In article <30446@optima.cs.arizona.edu>, bweiss@cs.arizona.edu (Beth Weiss) writes:
> 
> I can support a requirement for paternal notification.  I'm not sure
> what to do in those cases where the mother doesn't know (or claims
> she doesn't know) who the father is, though.
> 
> Scenario: Woman has baby she knows she can't support, and wishes to
> give up for adoption.  She claims she doesn't know who the father
> is.  
> 
> Now what?   
> 
> Options:
> 1) refuse to allow Mom to give up Baby, even though she doesn't want
> the baby, and that would make her (I would think) more likely to
> abuse the child
> 
> 2) Force her to list all possible fathers and contact them all to
> see what they want to do.  If a possible father wants custody if the
> child is his, then do DNA tests to see if he's really the father. 
> If all possibles don't care if the child is put for adoption, then
> there's no problem.
> 
> 3) Figure that if she doesn't know, whoever she names would likely
> be uninterested/disbelieving that they were the father.
> 
> #1 seems as if it would leave to child abuse.  #2 sounds fairest to
> me.   #3 doesn't give men enough credit for decency.
> 

#2 seems appropriate to me.
(Of course exceptions, for rape, etc....where the mother really might
not know.)

David Garrod

Newsgroups: soc.men
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Blatant Sexism (Re: adoption rules)
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 16:18:43 GMT

peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>
>>>But what if she truly doesn't know -- and can't even guess?  What 
>>>if she was raped and doesn't know who raped her?  What if she only
>>>knows his firstname (and it's something common like "john")?
>
>> "Don, are you in the habit of having sex with women when you know no more
>> about them than their first name? ...
>> I think that *most* men know considerably more than that. I also think
>> that you are wasting alot of time and energy on a point that is not 
>> particularly important"
>
>>          -- Michal Leah Peri, 15 Jan 93, <1j7bp5INN8b7@gap.caltech.edu>
>
>What of it?  There's always a few bad apples.  How would you deal with 
>the irrepsonsible ones?

 "I claim that it is very easy for him to avoid such a surprize by being 
 responsible in his sexual behavior.  You seem to believe that such 
 responsibility is a hardship on men -- a most uncharitable view of 
 your gender, IMO."

          -- Michal Leah Peri, 15 Jan 93, <1j7bp5INN8b7@gap.caltech.edu>



>And how would you deal with rape victims? (you might call these the
>"unfortunate ones")

Your hard-line view against men whose condom failed or who were
deceived with malice aforethought into becoming a parent does not
seem to apply to women who don't know the name of the men they sleep
with or who were raped.  

Isn't rape a horrible violation of personal integrity and control 
over one's life, as well as a horrible physical violation?


By the way, to answer your insulting question, I am not in the
habit of having sex with women whose last names I don't know.

But that is completely irrelevant, Michal, isn't it?  After all,
would you accept an abortion law that said a woman can't have an
abortion if she didn't know the name of the men she slept with?

You seem to believe that such a responsibility is a hardship on women 
-- a most uncharitable view of your gender, IMO.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: soc.men