HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Male Choice (1)
Date: 17 Dec 92 23:21:54 GMT
Organization: The Immoral Minority

In article <1gqu6rINN87q@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com 
(Adrienne Regard) writes:

>The arguments I've seen so far for male-choice are as holey as colanders.
>And certainly aren't going to make any strides with the faulty logic behind
>them.  The act of pointing out problems with arguments is the act of the
>'loyal opposition' I believe it's called.  

Tell me Adrienne, do you view the anti-abortion guys who shout "equal
rights for unborn women!" as a loyal opposition?

You, (like them), are not a loyal opposition because you don't
attack the arguments, you attack the proposals.  E.g.:

#For many of the same reasons I originally mentioned years ago.  The
#proposals I have seen appear to me to do more harm than good.  Both
#to men and to children.

Had you been "loyal opposition" (fat chance...) then you would say
something like "this argument will not help you to achieve your goal
because..." or even "here is an argument that could help you better..."
and so on.  Instead you attacked the very proposal of any "choice for men."

>It helps people with brains
>enough to think straight realize that they may need to consider a point or
>two from a different perspective.

All of that from the woman who made a real effort to let men 
feel unwelcomed in soc.women, and had the following signature:

   "In soc.women, a woman's perspective provides the basis.  Not a man's."

Too bad that you do not do what you preach...

>I also note that you specifically reject help, Hillel.

I don't want any help, from you, in setting the agenda.

>And consider that, AFTER *you* have rejected something someone puts forth
>that THEY have 'worked against' the proposal.

The wounded pride speaks again... 

>>Why do you insist about telling me what's good for men?

>Because, my darling Hillel, *you* *asked*.  

I asked if you were for or against choice for men, I did not ask why.
There was no need to put "it will do men more harm than good" as part
of the answer.

If you were not so arrogant then you would understand what's wrong in
telling people what's good for them, especially in their own group.

(Actually, you explained just that several years ago in soc.women,
but for some reason you have no use for your very own advice...)

>Adrienne Regard

Hillel                                       gazit@cs.duke.edu

Nobody needs "friends" who are doing the friendship to rack up
gold stars in heaven or anywhere else.  --  Mara Chibnik
Xref: sparky soc.men:21272 alt.abortion.inequity:5947 alt.feminism:6143
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited
Date: 16 Dec 92 21:27:51 GMT
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: The Immoral Minority

In article <1go33uINN2u9@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu 
(Michal Leah Peri) writes:

>Sorry, Don, but I just don't believe that the "zipperless fuck" is OK.

Maybe it is not OK, but sex for sex sake, with a woman 
who was honest about what she wanted, was a pretty good 
experience, for me (and her).

Anyway, Do you feel that it is OK to force this 
moral belief on other people?

If other people will enforce their moral belief on you (e.g. no abortion)
will it be OK?

>If people want to screw then they should take responsibility 
>for possible outcomes.

You want the state to force your moral belief on the men who don't follow
your moral.  Will it be OK to use the state power against women who don't
follow someone's else moral.  E.g. will it be OK to put a penalty of 25% 
of all future income for the next 18 years on a woman who has an abortion?

>                                                --  Michal

Hillel                                            gazit@cs.duke.edu

"When I do it to you it's sexism,
when you do it to me it's feminism."
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.child-support
From: karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: I HAD NO CHOICE ( was: Biological reasons etc...
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 22:50:41 GMT
Organization: MCSNet, Chicago, IL

In article <43XXVB1w165w@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca> lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca writes:
>karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>
>> If you are involved with any woman, married or not, you could be the next
>> gentleman in this position.  IT CAN HAPPEN TO YOU GENTS.  

> What is this? A wee bit of misogyny?  Talk about inflammatory generalizing!!!
> Not ALL women are nasty, just as not all men are assholes. Your above
> statement further neglects to point out that women are equally vulnerable
> to becoming involved with, and later burned by, men of questionable
> moral character, etc..

"When I do it to you it is misogyny.  When you do it to me its affirmitive
action."

How about your position on all of this Lisa?

Do you support:

1)	A change in the law which states that the affirmative use of birth
	control is prima-facie evidence of intent not to support children -
	therefore, a man who does so is released from parental responsibility
	should a >fetus< arise from sexual involvement with a woman?  (This 
	evolves from the fact that since a woman is the only one under current 
	law who can turn a fetus into a baby, if a man makes it clear that he 
	has no intention of raising babies then a woman should be able to 
	choose whether or not to generate that baby -- but BOTH parties should 
	be able to choose whether or not to support one).  Currently the
	law provides >two< outs for a woman from an unwanted pregnancy and
	its resultant responsibilities -- and a man with NO outs.

2)	A change in the law that states that the current child support system
	is unlawful on equal rights grounds, and that split 50-50 custody 
	should be the default.  (If custody is 50-50 split then child support 
	is unnecessary since the child(ren) are >already< receiving half their
	support from each parent).

	Further, in those cases where it is impossible for split custody to
	work that the CP must provide an >itemized< accounting of all funds
	spent on supporting the child; those spent in excess of 50% of the 
	cost of support to be refunded to the NCP immediately under penalty
	of law.

> We all know there's a lot of wolves in sheep's clothing out there. The
> question is, how do we turn such folk around so that there's more
> "Win-Win" relationships, and less "I Win, You Lose" nastiness?  Please
>  do your part by contemplating the issues --- and possible solutions ---
> with us, and not standing on a platform of such non-productive, destructive,
> and blanket gender-bashing.

See above, and answer the questions please.  

Are you interested in "equal rights" or are you interested in "females
first"?  If "equal rights" then the above should not be a problem for you.

--
Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900] Anon. arch. (nuucp) 00:00-06:00 C[SD]T
Request file: /u/public/sources/DIRECTORY/README for instructions

Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.dads-rights,
From: joel@ssd.intel.com (Joel Clark)
Subject: Re: Divorce woes
Organization: Supercomputer Systems Division (SSD), Intel
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 23:26:00 GMT

In article <43XXVB1w165w@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca> lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca writes:
}karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
}
}> In article <athos-111292122148@kip2-30.apple.com> athos@apple.com (Rick Eames
}> >In article <1992Dec11.144451.8946@bmw.mayo.edu>, bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce
}> >Cameron) wrote:
}> >
}> >> So, are you objecting to supporting the children you wanted, or
}> >> just pissed off that their mother left you?
}> >
}> >Actually, it sounds like he's upset that he got a RAW DEAL from the state. 
}> 
}> If you are involved with any woman, married or not, you could be the next
}> gentleman in this position.  IT CAN HAPPEN TO YOU GENTS.  
}> 
} What is this? A wee bit of misogyny?  Talk about inflammatory generalizing!!!
} The question is, how do we turn such folk around so that there's more
} "Win-Win" relationships, and less "I Win, You Lose" nastiness?  
}
}Lisa.
}
 
Lisa, once a couple with kids decides to split (the subject at hand) there 
is no more chance for WIN-WIN relationship.  Everybody, mother, father, 
children are going to lose something. While you are still trying to WIN 
in such a situation you are only making it worse for everybody.

joel
Xref: sparky soc.men:21137 alt.feminism:6002 soc.women:21445
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Subject: Re: Duck and Jive (was Re: Pre-Sex Contract )
Organization: QQQCLC
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 03:28:01 GMT

In article <724818175@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>In article <1992Dec19.180238.7233@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com 
>(Kenn Barry) writes:
>>	Let me put it in plain language, Kevin: if you father a kid you
>>don't want, you've got my sympathy up to the point where I and my fellow
>>taxpayers end up paying for it. 
>
>As a real idealist you just force someone else to pay for you ideals...

	The illogic of your statement really stands out with the
intervening bullshit removed, doesn't it?

						Kayembee
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Subject: Re: I HAD NO CHOICE ( was: Biological reasons etc...
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 13:34:49 GMT

In article <2214@newsserver.cs.uwindsor.ca> bouche2@server.uwindsor.ca (BOUCHER DAVID            ) writes:
>>|> When it comes to child support, the more he MAKES, the more they TAKE.  Also, 
>>|> child support is NOT tax deductible, nor does the 'non-custodial parent' get
>>|> the tax deduction for the children.  It doesn't increase the mother's tax 
>>|> burden by one cent.
>>|> 
>>
>>If child support is a percentage, not a fixed amount, then it would seem
>>that the less a man makes, the less he has to pay. Thus he is free to go
>>back to school or otherwise reduce his income to 0 without any worries.
>
>Now THERE'S a perceptive statement.  How exactly does one "reduce his income
>to zero *without any worries*"???  Become a carefree, happy vagrant and live in
>a cardboard box?  The less a man makes, the less he has to LIVE ON, and if he
>is already under a child support order, he will continue to pile up arrears 
>unless he can afford a lawyer to go into court and get the order changed.  In
>other words he becomes an evil deadbeat dad and subject to imprisonment.  Come 
>to think of it, I guess you can live on zero income if you go to jail.
>
>And, since school is NOT "free", he is not "free to go back to school" either.



	You know, I made a post (myself) that I'd like to respond to.
	I made a comment about how it's hard to be sympathetic to someone
	like Joan Lunden who has to pay 20,000/month in support, based on
	the "total income" picture.

	I thought about this over the weekend.  and it occured to me that
	my thinking about this was, in fact backwards.

	I mean it makes my skin crawl when I hear about men paying $250/week.
	However this possibly indicates that he has $500-$750 left over
	after paying that.


	The *REAL* problem is those paying *LESS*.  I mean if you pay
	$100/week from guidelines, how can you live on the $300/week
	you have left. The real outrage is the lowere end of the scale.


-- 
	Alan Yasutovich
	"inquiring  (and nosey) minds WANT TO KNOW!!!"
	I can remember when "safe sex" meant having a padded headboard!!
	Tick Tock.....Tick Tock......Tick Tock .....Tick Tock......
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,ba.singles,soc.singles
From: rohwerwd@netcom.com (Mr. Tickle Monster)
Subject: Re: Duck and Jive (was Re: Pre-Sex Contract )
Organization: The Tickle Palace - Moonyvale, CA
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 06:34:37 GMT

Desiree,

     I found this over in soc.men.  Since I do not know if you read soc.men,
I am posting it where I thing that you will see it.

In article <1992Dec17.081631.19856@sei.cmu.edu> firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.190828.20581@netcom.com> desiree@netcom.com (Desiree Champagne) writes:
>
>>	And put aside the bullshit about if she doesn't want the agreement
>>in the first place.  People do have the right, do they not, to change
>>their minds -- particularly about something like popping a kid?  Or
>>is that concept too much for your rigid mind to allow?  
>
>You're right.  You're absolutely right.  A woman has the right to enter
>into any agreement or contract whatsoever, of any degree of formality,
>and the further right to weasel out of it at any later time, for any
>rreason or none, to walk away scot free, and stick the nearest male
>human (aka "wallet") with the bill.
>
>Now are you happy?
>
>>	I am grossly tired of men that whine about double-standards
>>in this here life.  Yes, I understand that are plenty of double-standards
>>that we as a society have introduced.  And we all should be attuned to
>>those "false" double standards and strive to rid ourselves of them.
>
>For instance, all double standards that benefit men at the expense of women.
>
>>But the bottom line is:  there are natural double standards over which
>>we shouldn't have any control.  
>
>For instance, all double standards that benefit women at the expense of men.
>Including, of course, the one that says men are responsible for their own
>actions and choices, and also responsible for the woman's actions and choices.
>


-- 
                                         +---------------------------------+
  +-----------------------------------+ /  On Vacation:  12/21 to 12/27   /
 /   // Mr. Tickle Monster   // Amiga ++---------------------------------+
|  \X/   W. David Rohwer   \X/  3000  /  Internet: rohwerwd@netcom.COM  /
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
From: ronh@sr.hp.com (Ron Hogan)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: The Solution
Date: 18 Dec 92 17:28:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: srgenprp.BzGtwC.9Ht
Organization: HP Sonoma County (SRSD/MWTD/MID)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.9 PL6]



  Sometimes the solution is so obvious that everyone overlooks it.  All these
problems between men and women would be over if they would just STOP HAVING
SEX.  Then we could all just be human beings and get on with our lives.  Plus,
if everyone stopped this unnecessary behavior that really should be beneath the
dignity of a thinking species like ourselves, in a hundred years or so the
world could be a really nice place.
Xref: sparky soc.men:21175 alt.dads-rights:2950 alt.feminism:6053
From: biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp.
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 21:46:16 GMT

peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:

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

>>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes...
>>DB> signed,  another disingenuous idiot,
>>                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>>...And *all* this, just because I stole a single word from Heiner Biesel and
>>used it too much!  :-)

>No, I think you stole some of his idiocy too.

Not true. I still have all my original idiocy, and am adding steadily to it.

I don't intend to flatter you, but your contributions to idiocy in general
are appreciated. In future, please refer to me as simply "...that scum-sucking
Nazi asshole" - s.N.a. for short - in L. Levine's sonorous phrase.   

Regards,
       H. Biesel
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: I HAD NO CHOICE ( was: Biological reasons etc...
Date: 11 Dec 92 20:20:32 GMT
Followup-To: soc.men,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.child-support
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Dec11.144451.8946@bmw.mayo.edu>, bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce
Cameron) wrote:

> So, are you objecting to supporting the children you wanted, or
> just pissed off that their mother left you?

Actually, it sounds like he's upset that he got a RAW DEAL from the state. 
He not only lost his house and his kids, but he also gets to lose a big
chunk of his income, keeping him from getting ahead again.  While his
ex-wife gets to live in his house with his kids, he gets to live like a
slave.  How nice.

******************************************************************************
Rick Eames                               My Opinions Are My Own (not
Apple's)
athos@apple.com
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for Boxer.
******************************************************************************
Xref: sparky soc.men:21015 alt.dads-rights:2897 alt.abortion.inequity:5815 alt.child-support:3918
From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: I HAD NO CHOICE ( was: Biological reasons etc...
Date: 10 Dec 92 20:37:45 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron) writes:

> In article <2195@newsserver.cs.uwindsor.ca>, bouche2@server.uwindsor.ca (BOUC
> |> 
> |> When it comes to child support, the more he MAKES, the more they TAKE.  Al
> |> child support is NOT tax deductible, nor does the 'non-custodial parent' g
> |> the tax deduction for the children.  It doesn't increase the mother's tax 
> |> burden by one cent.
> |> 
> 
> If child support is a percentage, not a fixed amount, then it would seem
> that the less a man makes, the less he has to pay. Thus he is free to go
> back to school or otherwise reduce his income to 0 without any worries.

You're extrapolating, and in the doing, making a grave error. The courts
have the power to impute wages. If an NCP was making x dollars, and went
to school and reduced his income to x - y dollars, the court is free to
order support in the amount related to x, and in some cases even more.
Therefore, while the NCP was making x - y, they would still have to pay
as much as if they were still maing x (or more).

> Last time I looked, the 1040 (as well as applications for loans & credit
> applications) ask about other sources of income, on of which is child support
> payments. I also believe that you can take a deduction of a minor that does
> not reside with you if you contribute some given dollar amount towards that
> child's support. However, since I look at tax forms once a year, this is
> from a hazy memory and I am willing to accept that I may be off-base on
> this. Anyone know the actual IRS code on this?

Yes, the Custodial Parent gets the deduction unless they sign a waiver
which allows the NCP to claim the child(ren). Some states offer other
plans, however, the IRS itself will NOT honor them. The NCP would have
to seek relief on a state level, often costing enough that it isn't
worth the fight --specially if they might expect the same battle in the
next year.

> |> i just don't understand how the family courts can be so vicious and so
> |> ignorant... i can't help but wonder... did they have to take EVERYTHING??
> 
> So, are you objecting to supporting the children you wanted, or
> just pissed off that their mother left you?

Bruce, that was a pretty unnecessary remark --even moreso in light of
your significant misconceptions about how the systems work.

--- 
Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA 
Xref: sparky soc.men:21081 talk.rape:2895 alt.sex:39424 alt.sex.bondage:23955 talk.politics.guns:25128
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: that peri person
Date: 17 Dec 92 20:48:21 GMT
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <1go33uINN2u9@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>If people want to screw then they should take responsibility for possible
>outcomes.

	I'm sorry, but don't you mean "if men want to screw then they should 
take responsibility for possible outcomes" ?

	I mean, it'd be Evil and Patriarchal and Just Plain Wrong to tell
*her* that she slept with the guy so she can damn well have the kid...
Xref: sparky soc.men:21116 soc.motss:52134 soc.culture.new-zealand:3318 alt.censorship:9614 news.admin.policy:763
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.motss,soc.culture.new-zealand,alt.censorship,news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Jim Bowery's offensive posting
From: jonc@status.gen.nz (Jon Clarke)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 06:44:40 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The Z*NET Global News Gateway in Parnell New Zealand.
Keywords: What does have to do with soc.culture.new-zealand ??

kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:

          (140 lines deleted)

> -- 
> Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
>  = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =

 
 What does this have to do with soc.culture.new-zealand chaps? Please
 remove it from your Newsgroup: line.


 Jon Clarke                                                     Z*NET Pacific
 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
  jonc@status.gen.nz           GEnie: J.Clarke6        Hexagon: HSBC NZM EBD
  Phone: (+649) 358-5589       IFNA : 3/772:105        GEM    : NZM CABLES
 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
     "Practise safe computing ! Wear a write protect tab!" jc 1988
Xref: sparky soc.men:21001 soc.women:21369
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Date: 19 Dec 92 04:19:10 GMT
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <BzH97H.3I4@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>  Does it occur to you that men are also the one who PROMOTE all
>  the institutions and practices you describe, above?   From murder

	And just how do those awful male warmongers get elected over
and over again?  Is it because men comprise a 75% majority of eligible
voters?  I admit that I don't remember *one* *single* *woman* supporting
Vietnam.

	And even here in Texas no women _ever_ watch football, or insist
on dating the quarterback instead of their math tutor.

	And speaking of Texas, no mothers here ever plotted to murder the
mother of her daughter's girlfriend so that her own issue could get a spot
on the cheerleading squad.  And no rich women in Scarsdale New York ever 
murdered their lovers who happened to be famous doctors.  And the Manson girls
were poor manipulated vitims of one of those Evil Men.

	I've gotten in more than one fight because some woman didn't
like my face and lacking the *balls* to come beat me up herself egged
her boyfriend on - "Oooo, I don't like that guy Johnny.  Oooo, please go
kick his ass, he was _looking_ at me before".  And I've seen her play
"Let's you and him fight" so she gets the cheap thrill of seeing two guys 
fight over her and the ego boost of "getting" the most macho guy in the bar.

	In fact, twice in my life I've been attacked by women.  

	Too bad they don't just castrate all those awful men at birth.
The world would be ever so much more peaceful with nothing but sweet
gentle women like Squeaky Fromme in it.

	Ya know something, pete, you an' that Michal chick oughta get
married.  It's a match made in heaven.
From: bouche2@server.uwindsor.ca (BOUCHER DAVID            )
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: What's really behind this "men's choice" thing?
Date: 15 Dec 1992 17:08:02 GMT
Organization: University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada

In article <4371@unisql.UUCP> wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie) writes:

[In regard to J Dunphy]

> [...] Remember, this is the guy who starts flame wars and
>responds to email by calling your system administrator and threatening
>to sue you in Federal court for harrassment.  Under the theory that
>since way way at the bottom of his long nonsensical flames he says "no
>email please" if you send him any you're guilty of a Federal crime.

Maybe somebody should get in touch with HIS system administrator and forward
a few of his more choice postings.  The guy sounds like a menace to me.  The
kind of behavior you describe is analogous to cutting in front of someone in
rush-hour traffic then slamming on the brakes in the hope of collecting on a
lawsuit.  Who knows, maybe he has been able to make a little money from "out-
of-court settlements" on this kind of beef?

- db

Disclaimer: I have no personal knowledge of J Dunphy and make no representation
as to whether any statements about him are true or false, e.g. I don't know 
whether or not he is actually "a paranoid pinhead and a whining weenie"... ;)
  

Newsgroups: soc.men