HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Gender Discrimination
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 13:48:23 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA






   Both the New York Times and LA Times News services reported
   over the weekend that when Bill Clinton was choosing an 
   Attorney General he limited his search to only women!   

   If my employer, Hewlett Packard, had an explicit policy of
   only opening a certain position to one sex, or systematically
   only considering candidates of one gender for a certain job,
   wouldn't we be hauled into court faster than you could say,
   "Zoe Baird"?   (I hope so!)

   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. 

   And what effect would this have on compliance with anti-dis-
   crimination laws, knowing that the Justice Department itself
   was run by someone chosen by a process that violates the very 
   statutes they are attempting to enforce?


---peter
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Blatant Sexism (Re: adoption rules)
Date: 26 Jan 93 14:49:12 GMT
Distribution: na

peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>bweiss@cs.arizona.edu (Beth Weiss) writes:
>
>>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:
>>2) Force her to list all possible fathers and contact them all to
>>see what they want to do.


>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")?
>
>Also, what if she gives a *long* list?  Who is responsible for 
>diggin up all these men and contacting them?  Who pays for it?


 "Don, are you in the habit of having sex with women when you know no more
 about them than their first name?  Do you usually know no more than the
 continent and the year when you engage in intercourse?  This surprizes me.

 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:  as I understand it your hypothesis is that it
 is difficcult for a man to avoid being surprized by a paternity suit.
 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>


Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Xref: sparky soc.men:23053 alt.abortion.inequity:6626 alt.feminism:7475
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Don's interesting proposition
Date: 22 Jan 1993 02:34:30 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

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?
-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Impressive amounts of material can be accreted in this manner.
Newsgroups: soc.men,misc.kids,alt.parents-teens
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: adoption rules
Date: 21 Jan 1993 20:08:36 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

rlt@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (r l taylor) writes:

>In article <1jkvmeINNkjs@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>rlt@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (r l taylor) writes:

>>>How much time is/should be allowed between the birth of the child, and
>>>the adoption

>>in CA, 6 months.

>What is the intent of this time period?  I have always understood it to be
>a "trial period" during which the state can evaluate whether the adoption
>is acceptable;  nowhere have I heard it suggested that it is to give the
>father time to track down his child.  Am I correct in this assumption?

My understanding is that this period is to allow the parents to re-consider
whether they really want to give up the child.  During the 6 months either
biological parent can demand the child back.

-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Impressive amounts of material can be accreted in this manner.
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.dads-rights
From: lisa@zeppelin.llnl.gov (Lisa Corsetti)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Gender Discrimination
Date: 26 Jan 93 21:13:09 GMT
Reply-To: lisa@zeppelin.llnl.gov (Lisa Corsetti)
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: Climate Model Intercomparison Group, LLNL

In article <C1Ex0o.3Lt@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

 [...]  stuff deleted about only considering a woman for the job of
 attourney general...

>
>   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. 
>


How does it feel?


- Lisa

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
|  "There's no beginning, no ending. There's just infinite                    |
|   passion of life."                                                         |
`-----------------------------------------------------------------------------'
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: rat@erg.sri.com (Ray Trent)
Subject: Re: Drunk Sex = Rape ? (was Re: Mysogynist Bullshit)
Reply-To: rat@erg.sri.com (Ray Trent)
Organization: SRI International, Menlo Park, CA
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 00:43:01 GMT

In an article, "amy lynn young-leith" <alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu> writes:
>As for the person who didn't believe that rape laws originated as a
>crime against property, then why, for the longest time, was it not
>considered rape if you were married?  A married woman could only be

The standard bogus explanation for marital exceptions to rape law that
I've always heard is that both parties gave consent during the
marriage ceremony to all further sexual activity. I've never heard the
property argument from anyone that didn't have an axe to grind.
-- 
"When you're down, it's a long way up
 When you're up, it's a long way down
 It's all the same thing
 And it's no new tale to tell"                      ../ray\..
From: mr_scary@lakes.trenton.sc.us (Chris Hurley)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: The art of a close shave
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 23:21:34 EST
Reply-To: mr_scary@lakes.trenton.sc.us (Chris Hurley)
Organization: Lakes Public Access

x73rl@ll.mit.edu ( Rick LaFave) writes:

> 
> If I want a real close shave - in the shower, bar soap, shave 'against
> the grain'.  I can do this before work and after work (maybe a special 
> evening) with good results.  Any more than this and I swear my face will 
> fall off!
>                                 Rich

I never can get an electric razor to do anything.  I find that if I shave 
first with the grain, then again against the grain, I get baby soft skin 
for several hours.  If I shave against the grain first I frequently get 
cut to bits for some reason (and always extremely irritated)...
 
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod)
Subject: Re: Sexual Discrimination
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 16:04:04 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.074741.28201@actcnews.res.utc.com>, Bob.Clarke%bbs@actcnews.res.utc.com (Bob Clarke) writes:
> > >Deletions...
> > >
....
> 
> One comment though, the disscusion seems to centering on gender basis,
> however I have been told that the court considers itself to be the adovcate
> for the child, and will do what is best for the child, or at least what it
> believes to be the best.  Both parents maybe capable of raising the child,
> but which one is best?  Being capable may not be enough.  We maybe faced
> with a more subtle distinction here then simple gender basis.
> 
> It was my post that started this thread, "Child Custody to Father?" about a
> week ago.  I must admit I am pleased with the quality of the thread, and I
> will look for the book you referenced, I am going to need hard/published
> facts.
> 

     I agree that one may not be able to prove sexist bias just by
looking at sole custody numbers.  But how do you explain the
following:

i.   When men get sole custody, a support order is made against the
     mother only 48% of the time.  (Compared with 99.4% when mothers
     have sole custody.)  Given that the minimum order is $25, unless
     a deviation from guidelines is made.

ii.  The incidence of joint legal custody is extremely low, when an
     order of joint legal custody would in my opinion best preserve
     parental rights "more precious than property rights".
                       Thus sayeth the U.S. Supreme Court.

iii. Men are commonly sent to jail for support non-payment, regardless
     of whether they have the ability to pay.  However, notwithstanding
     the fact it is class B misdemeanor, there have only been two
     prosecutions ever in Indiana for visitation denial and no
     women has ever been sent to jail.  In fact, in the first
     prosecution, the sexist  (expletive deleted) of a judge dismissed
     the case on the grounds that the father had adequate civil remedies!
     Further civil remedies, contempt of court, etc do not work,
     because of the sexist bias.  The most egregious example I can
     recall with multiple returns to court, about 12 if my memory is
     correct, and even though eventually the judge sentenced the
     woman (we are talking after 4 years of repeated violations
     and hearings...$20K cost to the father) to 14 days in jail,
     he then suspended the sentence.  AND then stuck the father
     with the mother`s attorney fees!


It seems to me, given the different treatment above, there is no
other explanation than blatant sexism, but I would appreciate it
if anyone could point out any flaws in my conclusions.

David Garrod
From: bouche2@server.uwindsor.ca (BOUCHER DAVID            )
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: masturbation
Date: 25 Jan 1993 19:50:36 GMT
Organization: University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada

In article <1993Jan23.171050.9475@lunatix.uucp> kwill@lunatix.uucp (Kelvin Williams) writes:

 [ tale of the unwanted 'woody', deleted ]

>more people were staring at my crotch than usual.  What my question is, is 
                                       ^^^^^^^^^^ How many people are
                                                  "usually" staring at it?

>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.

Good grief... don't you suppose that anybody you work with has a sense
of SMELL?  I would think you would be more embarrassed to go around 
smelling like a used condom.

I would suggest that you try wearing baggy pants, and if all else fails try 
thinking about dead kittens or doing it with Hillary... ;)

- db


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 20:52:25 GMT

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.
>
>Unfortunately, as with most "what-if"s, the answers to this question
>is impossible to ascertain.

But some feminists seem to do it every day, Michal.  Even more so in Canada.

(By the way, why do you quote the Economist and in your next article
then say it was not the salient question to consider?)

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.dads-rights
From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Subject: Mia/Woody
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 01:33:52 GMT

Farrow's nanny quits amid orders to testify

Mia Farrow's nanny quit her $40,000-a-year job because "I knew I was
not going to testiy for Miss Farrow," Monica Thompson said in a
statement issued Monday by Woody Allen's spokeswoman, Leslee Dart.

Farrow, 47, is battling with Allen, 57, over custody of their
biological son, Satchel, 5, and two aopted children, Dylan, 7, and
Moses, 14.  Farrow alleges that Allen sexually abused Dylan and
Connecticut authorities are investigating.

"Mr. Allen was always the better parent," Thompson continued in her
statement, "and the things Miss Farrow is now saying about him are not
true.  Dylan always loved him dearly and misses him, and still loves
him."

Farrow lawyer Eleanor Alter said she served the subpoena on Thompson
Jan. 19.  Alter said it was not to testify for Farrow, but "to tell
about one particular incident she had volunterred to someone else."

Alter said Thompson was paid by Allen and that Farrow suspected she
spied for him.  "Miss Farrow's relieved that she's no longer in the
household," Alter said.

Allen expressed sadness Monday that Thompson "who's put in seven devoted
years ... winds up with a subpoena, a few weeks severance pay, and in
search of a job."

Source:  _USA Today_, January 26, 1993

Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM
From: ematz@world.std.com (Ed Matz)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Men bonding with their Children.
Date: 26 Jan 93 22:18:24 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

In article <glen.728076959@cs.wisc.edu> glen@slate.cs.wisc.edu (Glen Ecklund) writes:
>
>As a feminist man, I'm glad that you have a good relationship with your
You have my sympathies.   I, for one, cannot identify myself as "a feminist
man."   To me, that's suicidal.   Too many feminist posters reading
things like
	"When God made Adam, She was only practicing"
				and
	"Men; you can't live with them, and you can't shoot them."
Too many feminists have given speeches like the one Molly Yard (President
of NOW) gave at a pro-choice rally, where she proclaimed to a mixed audience,
"We won't accept the tyranny of men."   Which men? did she mean the men
in the audience who heard her attack?   Hard to tell.   The men in the
pro-life movement?   But what about all those women in the pro-life
movement: aren't they tyrranizing women when it comes to abortion?
Too many feminists proclaiming that "all men are pigs."
Too many feminists telling us the problem is violence against women
when the real problem is violence, period.   Too many feminists promoting
the notion that all men are oppressors, all women are victims, that
men have all the power, women have none (why is it, then, that so very
men feel so very powerLESS?).

No, I cannot be a feminist man.   But I can -- and do -- support the
recovery, psychology and spirituality aspects of feminism.   Indeed,
while I had difficulty with her mistaken feminist notion of men as
articulated in the book, one of the best books I've read is Gloria
Steinem's _Revolution from Within_.

But I have too much self-esteem not to recognize that men must
-- absolutely and without hesitation -- confront the shadow of
feminism.

>(National Organization for Women).  We have a 2.5 year old son.  I always 
>feel welcome at NOW functions, and I have no sense that feminists overlook
>my nurturing of or bonding with my son.
>It's not the feminists who say I'm "babysitting" when I go out with my son.
There's something ironic about feminism and feminists.   The most vocal
feminists I've known -- those who were loudest in calling "all men are
pigs!" -- also seemed to treat other women worse than they treat men.
My wife, a soft-spoken feminist, has observed this phenomenon, also.
Funny, I thought the notion of feminism was to promote women and
femininity, not to bash it.

Ed Matz		ematz@world.std.com
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: domestic  violence & the super bowl
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 18:48:06 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.231201.21812@informix.com> mcole@sub-40 (Mary Cole) writes:
)Here's a message I received today. Please add your support to it and help  
)others:
)
)
)|>From POMONA.CLAREMONT.EDU!JRYCENGA Wed Jan 20 11:52:44 1993
)|
)|For political activists, or media watchdogs, or just concerned
)|women, here's a quick something you can do to help prevent
)|and stop domestic violence.

Is an advertisement really going to stop all those women from hitting their
husbands on Superbowl Sunday?

Half a :-)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism.alt.dads-rights
From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Subject: Re: Privacy -- and responsibility
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 08:30:32 GMT

In article <1993Jan19.193048.24709@ll.mit.edu> x73rl@ll.mit.edu ( Rick LaFave) writes:
>Men
>are by far the losers in divorce, not women.  Women, by holding the kids up 
>as a shield, are entitled to a post-divorce standard of living that is 
>equivalent to before divorce.  Men are obviously not entitled to that 
>standard as they don't get custody (generally).  I hope I'm around in say 
>20 years when men are getting a fair shake through the courts and wymen 
>are whyning about child support.
>
>  Oh and men are in such a priveleged position WRT kids these days?
>I've said it before and I'll say it again.  Any rights that men have WRT
>kids (married or not) are at the discretion of the woman.  There are no 
>rights (for him WRT kids) that a sufficiently vindictive female can't 
>thwart with impunity.  Under our current laws and court system any such 
>rights he believes he has are an illusion.

>  Let me continue...  You have pointed out to me the right to demand to 
>participate in the childs care.  I put to you that this is the right to pay 
>support and (as long as she desires) partcipate in the care of the child.
>As such it is no different that other 'male rights'.
>
>Man and woman have sex. When its 
>over - well its ALL over, the condom has been rent asunder, sperm are going 
>wild, the great egg hunt is on (and its not even easter!).  Lo and behold
>a clump of cells is formed inside the woman.  Man says 'Wow I must be a 
>manly sort-o-man!  Uh.. BTW  what do you think about an abortion?'
>To which woman may reply 'Sorry I'm going to let that lump-o-cells turn 
>into a kid for you to support, and there is nothing you can do about it.'
>
>Now I'll grant you that he had his fun, and he made a lump of cells, but 
>he did not make the child.  It was her decision to do that, she made the 
>child out of the (non-alive acording to pro-choice) lump of cells.  Now 
>if she turned the non-alive lump-o-cells into a child by her own choice 
>and all by her lonesome then who is responsible?  (No need to answer, if 
>you are as dogged as you have been in the past we already know your answer.)
>I've said in the past that there is an inconsistancy between saying that he 
>has no rights as far as the z/e/f is concerned and demanding he support the 
>resulting child.  If support is demanded, then he must have some rights 
>associated with the z/e/f, if he has no such rights, then support should 
>not be mandated.

What he said.

Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM 
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: Drunk Sex = Rape ? (was Re: Mysogynist Bullshit)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 23:24:59 GMT
Organization: MCSNet, Chicago, IL

In article <1jt0fjINNm3f@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>
>Guess again.  This is CA law.  If you have a party, one of your guests
>gets drunk, drives off and injures someone, then you're liable.  It is 
>a host's responsibility to ensure that his guests do not drive off if
>they're drunk.  (The host can either call them a cab or have them stay 
>over and sleep it off.)

Yet another sign of our f*ed up legal system.

People are not responsible for their own actions once they consume alcohol.
Great.

My solution is to outlaw alcohol until people force these laws to be
repealed.  

I am damn glad I don't live in that state.

--
Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900]

Newsgroups: soc.men,talk.rape
From: "amy lynn young-leith" <alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Drunk Sex = Rape?
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 10:38:35 -0500

In article <C1FBB1.KKw@hplntx.hpl.hp.com> albert@hpl.hp.com (Joseph Albert) writes:
>What????  Willie Kennedy smith's acquittal is a testament to the fact
>that "innocent until proven guilty" is very alive and well in this country.

What about all the "regular" people who have charges of sexual
harassment, child abuse, or rape levied against them, and despite
the charges being dropped, or being found not guilty, are continually
referred to as "accused rapist, child molstersts" etc?  And lose their
job because of it?  Lose a custody battle because of it?  

I was not referring to a strictly courtroom version of this, but more
the media and society in general.  People are all too quick to
convict, lock up and throw away the key on someone before the case
even hits the courts!


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:23166 alt.abortion.inequity:6682 alt.dads-rights:3474