HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dmcanzi@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi)
Subject: Twilight Zone Logic
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 23:56:06 GMT

Excerpt from Men's Issues Newsbrief #60:

>WINNIPEG (CP) - Almost 40 per cent of women polled in a survey said they had
>physically abused their spouse, considerably more than the percentage of men
>making the same claim.  The research turns the popular belief about family
>violence on its head and will likely be "hotly challenged", says Rena Summer,
>one of the study's authors.
>
>Even the researchers were surprised, she admitted Thursday.  "These findings
>should cause people to rethink the whole nature of spousal abuse in terms of
>criminal justice, in terms of arrests," said Summer, a doctoral student in the
>University of Manitoba's family studies department.
>
>The findings run counter to extensive evidence that women are the main victims
>of family violence, said Huguette Leger of the National Action Committee on
>the Status of Women.  Leger pointed to the many criminal charges laid against
>men for beating or killing their partners, and the expanding network of
>battered women's shelters.  Men might be less likely than women to admit
>abusing their wives, perhaps because they consider it normal, she suggested.

The claim was made recently that society values women's lives less
than men's lives.  Somebody asked why, if that was so, news reports of
disasters emphasized the deaths of women and children.  I cynically
suggested that feminist "True Believers" might explain this as gloating.
Leger sounds like the kind of person who would believe that theory.

Contrary to what Leger seems to think, people will tell you about the
things they do that they think are normal and not tell you about the
ones they think are not normal.  If we were to grant the commonly made
assumption that men abuse their wives in larger numbers than women
abuse their husbands, then the survey results would indicate that it's
*women* who think it normal to abuse their spouses.

As for the other evidence Leger quotes, in a society that considers
male violence against women very important and female violence against
men trivial, one would expect to see more men than women arrested for
spouse abuse, and more shelters for abused women than for abused men.
Leger's argument reduces to: society believes it, you should too.  In
other words, it's a general argument for accepting all your society's
beliefs, including its superstitions and prejudices.
-- 
David Canzi
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: weverka@csn.org (Robert T. Weverka)
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 20:29:32 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.163044.14483@u.washington.edu> rons@hardy.u.washington.edu (Ronald Schoenberg) writes:
>
>I think you should check out the list of the world's wealthiest people
>- all men by the way.  Maybe you thought I was talking about income.
   ^^^^^^^
>Even when it's income it's not 50-50, but when it's wealth it's more
>like 90 to 10 in favor of men.
>

Wher can I get hold of this list?
Does the list stop before getting to the likes of
Jackie Kenendy Onasis and Madona?

-Ted


Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: compromise
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Distribution: na
Date: 10 Nov 92 20:57:25 GMT

In <Bx8wxx.6Dz@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

>In article <1da49nINNnl2@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>jrmo@volta.att.com (J.R.Moore) writes:

>>>Choose a point that marks a time when the pregnancy becomes more
>>>than a private matter....
>>>It would be illegal to interfere with the privacy of women and their
>>>doctors when no evidence of life or no evidence of sustainable life
>>>existed in the woman.  Therefore women would be guaranteed the right 
>>>to choose to terminate a pregnancy without any roadblocks....
>>>once evidence of life or sustainable life exist, the state has a
>>>compelling interest to equally protect the lives of both the mother
>>>and child.  Therefore, no abortions could be performed after that point,
>>>except in life-threatening cases.
>>
>>Congratulations!  You've just lined out the basic idea behind Roe v Wade.

>Not at all.

>Roe v. Wade *allowed* the state to decide to prevent abortions 
>after viability, because of a compelling interest.

Except for reasons where the life OR HEALTH of the woman is threatened.
Even Don Beaver left this part out, and I could go on about how
broadly both Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton talk about health.

Not to mention the experience of the British with their "Therapeautic"
abortion act of 1967, which amounted in practice to abortion on demand
in the hands of the right abortionist.

>It did not say that the state *must* prevent abortions after viability,
>or must deduce that its "compelling interest" *requires* banning abortions.

>Any state in the Union can permit an abortion on the day before birth.

>"Pro-choicers" sweep this under the rug.  It's not so politically pleasant.
>(Although it is politically correct.)

Touche.

Peter Ny.

Newsgroups: soc.men
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: Another One
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 22:18:39 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <1992Nov9.220927.9438@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com writes:
[very long and extremely scary article on false child-abuse allegations related
[to custody battles deleted.

  A similar case took place here in Texas.  The _Texas Monthly_ had a write-up
about it.  The difference here is that it looks like the good guys won.  I'll
try to find the article and post something about it tomorrow.


semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mike Levine: Triumph 		               *
********************************************************************************
Xref: sparky soc.men:19149 soc.women:19410
From: aaron@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Sexual victimization of 13 year old boy
Date: 12 Nov 92 10:38:16 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England

Carol Gibson (carol@ee.uts.edu.au) wrote:
: ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe) writes:
: 
: >I think this is a gross simplification. Men, and especially boys, just
: >don't think in unique terms of men=strong, women=weak. 
: 
: Oh sure - and this is why men who get battered by their wives get laughed
: at by the boys down at the police station when they go to report it...
: And this is why a man who is dominated by his wife is referred to as
: "hen-pecked" in a disparaging way - he is showing that he is *weak* in
: this society where men are supposed to be the strong ones.

  Yes the prejudice of men against men still exists but the situation 
  is gradually being changed and is by no means a characteristic of 
  all men and it would be a ridiculous generalisation to assert that 
  it is (although the implication seems to be hidden behind a specific 
  example so I am not sure exactly how to interpret your intentions)

  We should all (men and women) support men who are fighting these 
  entrenched attitudes.
 
: How about spending time teaching people about other's rights so this
: sort of thing happens less in the first place?

  Good idea, this being one of the areas most neglected in education today.
  However I think there is too much time devoted to 'moral' education which
  tends to mean obedience training rather than teaching consideration and
  compassion (but I digress)

		Aaron Turner		aaron@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth)
Subject: Re: Abortion and humanity
Organization: Software Engineering Institute
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 13:44:26 GMT

In article <1dq3b1INNj56@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:

>Because I am an adult woman, and I *know* I am more important than
>an unborn foetus.

And I am a slaveowner, an I know I'm more important than a nigger.  5/3
as important, to be Constitutionally exact.  And, as a man, of course I
know I'm more important than any woman.  And, as an Aryan, I'm a LOT
more important than all the Slavic untermensch scum on the planet.

Gee, wouldn't life be easy if we just sat back and let the oppressor
define the terms of the discourse?
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.sex
From: nrh@philabs.philips.com (Nikolaus R. Haus)
Subject: WET DREAMS: How often? Why?
Originator: nrh@lion
Reply-To: nrh@philabs.philips.com (Nikolaus R. Haus)
Organization: Philips Laboratories, Briarcliff, NY 10510
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1992 23:55:12 GMT


I was wondering: if your 'average' man were to go without sex of any sort (with other
pwople or by himself), how often would he have wet dreams? And, more interestingly,
_why_ would he have wet dreams?

-nikkin
-- 
"... nights of heat and weirdness in which we alone are awake,
 humming with forbidden energy; nights into which we would not
 send our dogs - wild sea and wet forest and eyes and teeth ..."
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu (Eric Forbis)
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Organization: University of Minnesota
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 01:28:20 GMT

In article <1992Nov2.175238.15881@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes:
>Xref: news.cis.umn.edu soc.men:18364 soc.women:18332 alt.abortion.inequity:4895 talk.abortion:45779 alt.feminism:3580
>Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
>Path: news.cis.umn.edu!umn.edu!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!rpi!usenet.coe.montana.edu!caen!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!sgi!wdl1!bard
>From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
>Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
>Message-ID: <1992Nov2.175238.15881@wdl.loral.com>
>Sender: news@wdl.loral.com
>Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
>Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
>References: <1992Oct25.004402.7160@netcom.com> <1cf2kcINN84t@gap.caltech.edu> <N0GSB7DQ@cc.swarthmore.edu> <1992Oct30.145703.13722@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> <forb0004.33.720650534@student.tc.umn.edu>
>Distribution: na
>Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1992 17:52:38 GMT
>Lines: 30
>forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu (Eric Forbis) writes:
># jrmo@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (joseph.r.moore) writes:
># >That said, it's embarrassing to see people go to such lengths to try
># >to restrict abortions using lame ideas like spousal notification.  And
># >we all know that the next step from notification is consent.  
># 
># You've completely missed the point: spousal notification is about father's 
># rights. Notification doesn't equal or imply consent in any way. 
>
>No.  Spousal notification isn't about "father's rights," it's about
>"husband's rights" -- get your own terminology straight.
>
I didn't originate the phrase "spousal notification" or consciously choose 
it to define a position by repeating the phrase, so I don't feel very 
compelled to obey your command to "get your own terminology straight." A 
father may not be a husband, and fatherhood is the issue. 




># Roe v Wade will be scuttled, rewritten, or strengthened in the very near 
># future. Irregardless of the outcome, I can gaurantee you that there will be 
># fathers out there fighting for consistent legal recognition of their 
># status.
>
>Husbands.
>
>There is a fine point underneath this seemingly innocuous quip that a
>lot of people would do well to reflect upon.
>
>
>-- 
>+---------------------------+  ``But I think that until MAGOG can get
>| J H Woodyatt              |  some solid Financing, and an exchangeable
>| bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com |  currency, we can postpone the second
>+---------------------------+  coming for a while.''
>                                                  -- drieux, just drieux  
>
---------

Eric Forbis      forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father
X-To: MICHAEL RIVERO
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 03:44:00 GMT

rivero@mdcbbs.com (Michael Rivero) writes...
MR> In article <1c7ecqINNe8b@gap.caltech.edu>, peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah
MR> i) writes:
MR> |> rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:
MR> |>
MR> |> >  I don't like that part of it either, as the woman could just sign the
MR> |> >statement without saying anything to her husband. Then she could "inform
MR> |> >the husband after it was all over and it was too late (the way my ex did
MR> |> >to me). At that point, what option does the man have?
MR> |>
MR> |> What option does the man have if she informs him *before* the proceedure?
MR> |> (As I read the statute, it said the husband must be informed, but does no
MR> |> give him any legal authority to prevent the abortion from taking place.)

MR>   No, but it does give him the opportunity to "present his case", hear her
MR> concerns, and suggest alternatives. At the very least it lets him
MR> know that she has some respect for his input. If she just goes and kills
                           ^^^^^^^
MR> his child without even telling him, that pretty much translates
MR> as "fuck you and what you think, asshole" in my book.


Na, na, na, na, na ... Now now, let's not be caught using that dreaded "R" word,
gasp!  :-)

Excuse ny sarcasm.  While I agree with what you said, just WATCH someone pounce
on you and try to imply that you're "trying to control women who don't show you
the proper respect".  Typical knee-jerk reaction, right?

At any rate, while the "right" has made "family values" a four-letter word, the
same has to be said of the "left"'s contribution to the word "respect".  Oh
well... I guess that I'll just have to start pulling it out of all my
dictionaries, lest any innocent individuals set their virgin eyes upon such
language...

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

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Cry on someone else's shoulder, I'm off-duty. * Troi
Newsgroups: soc.men

rons@hardy.u.washington.edu (Ronald Schoenberg) writes:

> I don't have to be a bleepin' feminist to explain it to you.  Men
> control wealth and they control access to it.  This was not
> accomplished with the permission of women, they just took it.

  You're a man; how much wealth and access to wealth do you control?
How much wealth and access to wealth does the average laid-off factory
worker (male) have?  Not every man is H. Ross Perot.

  So, where do I sign up for the wealth that you claim is my birthright?

> The one
> thing men don't control about women is their ability to have children
> (I think your emotional reaction to this issue is evidence of the
> difficulty men have dealing with this).  Thus if women are to have any
> control over their standard of living, they have to use the one bit of
> leverage they have over men.  Certainly some women may be abuse this
> leverage, but there are many more men who do worse (women are not
> different from men in their ability to be venal, but they are
> different in their lack of access to power and wealth).  

  So if you were married and had several children, and your wife decided one
day to leave with them and never let you see them again, you would just
say "well, this is because I control wealth and the access to it, and
she is just using the children as the only leverage over me--so that's
O.K."

	Men control wealth.	This is bad.

	Women control children.	This is good.

		Uh huh.

> If men as a whole would give up their control of wealth, give women a
> chance to earn their own way - and this would require decent child
> care at a price that doesn't completely negate their salaries - then I
> suspect that the need for women to exercise their leverage would disappear.

  If women as a whole would give up their control of children, give men a
chance to fully participate in a family - and this would require decent
custody arrangements that don't completely negate the role of father - then I
suspect that the need for men to exercise their leverage would disappear.

  Yes.  You should give up your control of wealth to make this a better
world for women.

  That's right, we need decent child care that doesn't cost much but
pays high salaries to the women who provide it, so they can earn their
own way.  (Are there any child care places that would consider hiring
men?)  I guess we'll have to implement an extra "Y-chromosome tax" to
make up the difference.

Xref: sparky soc.men:18738 alt.sex:35091
From: v003nnc3@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (MR. BUNGLE)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.sex
Subject: Re: WET DREAMS: How often? Why?
Date: 6 Nov 92 15:27:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Nov4.235512.29164@philabs.philips.com>, nrh@philabs.philips.com (Nikolaus R. Haus) writes...
> 
>I was wondering: if your 'average' man were to go without sex of any sort (with other
>pwople or by himself), how often would he have wet dreams? And, more interestingly,
>_why_ would he have wet dreams?
> 
>-nikkin
>-- 
>"... nights of heat and weirdness in which we alone are awake,
> humming with forbidden energy; nights into which we would not
> send our dogs - wild sea and wet forest and eyes and teeth ..."

How often would be determined by his hormone levels, how fast he produced
sperm.  The testes can only store so much sperm, and must be "emptied"
periodically.  Since the "average" man produces probably a million sperm a day,
without release this builds.  But how frequent the dreams are is manily
determined by hormone levels.  Just a little biological explanation, hope it
helps.

later,

Mr. Bungle
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Date: 5 Nov 92 22:34:49 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences

In article <1992Nov3.144951.2536@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> jrmo@volta.att.com (J.R.Moore) writes:
>In article <BwyFDw.LJu@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct30.145703.13722@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> jrmo@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (joseph.r.moore) writes:
>>>I have some thoughts.  Really.
>>
>>You forgot a smiley-face.
>>
>>>And
>>>we all know that the next step from notification is consent.  
>>
>>And the next step from the right to bear arms is the right to kill people.
>>
>>You have a nice slogan that we may all know well.  It's a bit short 
>>on the "thoughts" side, though.  IMO.
>
>Ouch!  Suppose we have a new law that requires notification to buy guns.
>What relevance is it what your spouse thinks, either it's your right and
>soley your decision, or it's not.  I don't mind getting hammered on this
>issue, but let's see some thoughts on the relevance of notification.
>
>Either the baby is a part of the woman's body and under her sole control,
>or it's a separate entity, deserving of rights.

Or maybe it's not that simple at all.
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth)
Subject: Re: Abortion and humanity
Organization: Software Engineering Institute
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 13:56:39 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.213348.2757@swbatl.sbc.com> cp7927@oktext.UUCP (Caryn S. Prater) writes:

>Gee, I thought that's what you were doing.  If you are able to en-
>force the pro-life agenda then don't you become the opressor?

If I stop people owning slaves, am I oppressing slaveholders?  If I
stop people gassing Jews, am I oppressing Nazis?  No, and for this
simple reason: my actions are not motivated primarily by the desire
to oppress, but by the desire to save from oppression.  They are not
primarily against the perpetrator, but for the victim.

Now, I happen to think a slave has the same moral worth as a slaveholder,
and a Jew the same moral worth as a Nazi.  I can't justify that by
reason, but it's my morality and I'm entitled to it.  Likewise, I think
a human foetus has the same moral worth as a born human, and I'm
entitled to that view too.  If it is wrong to kill a Jew for the
personal satisfaction and convenience of a Nazi, it is equally wrong
to kill a foetus for the convenience and satisfaction of a woman.

Even if the law allows you to own slaves (as it did), or kill Jews
(as it did), or abort foetuses (as it does), I can still test that
law against the conscience I, like all humans, possess.  And find
it wanting.

>Being pregnant is like no other experience on earth.  No one can ex-
>perience pregnancy but a woman, and not even all women can become
>pregnant.  As a woman I become the source for all that the foetus
>requires and my body will be depleted in response to the needs of
>the foetus.  It should be my decision and mine only as to wether
>or not I am able either emotionally or physically to carry this
>child.

Absolutely.  So you act the way all reasonable adult humans have acted
since the beginning of civil society: do not assume responsibilities
you are unable to discharge.   If you are not able emotionally or
physically to carry a child, you have no moral right voluntarily to
conceive that child.  Any more than you have a moral right to take
out a loan you know you can't repay, or make a promise you know you
can't keep.  We are all responsible for the reasonably forseeable
consequences of our actions.  Without that principle, we'd be back
in the caves.
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: compromise (was Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 00:39:16 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
->Roe v. Wade is essentially unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout
->the term of pregnancy.

this statement is not correct.
[asserted without supporting evidence since such
evidence has been posted dozens of times in response to
holtsinger's comments to the contrary]