HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Bashing Behaviors
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 17:42:53 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.152046.10646@tfs.com> ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic) writes:
>dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber) writes:
>>
>>No, I think you missed his point.  The point was that when men pass such
>>lists, women get offended.  Yet women are allowed open season on men.  Try
>>making a little tour through the greeting cards in your drugstore sometime
>>and count the number of male-bashing cards.  I don't recall ever having seen
>>the converse.  There are also coffee mugs, bumper stickers, etc...
>
>This occurs to me too. There is a 'beer vs. women' T-shirt, and that's
>about all I've seen vs.-women, not like I'm looking or anything.
>A lot of noise from (some) women whereas I don't get the same impression
>about men.

"Not like I'm looking or anything..."  That's the point.  You've
missed a lot of it.  How about: Andrew Dice Clay; Eddie Murphy;
endless jokes about the smell of female genitals (what two things
smell like fish?  one is fish); endless jokes about PMS and
menstruation; all the blonde jokes (you think they're talking about
blond men?); a t-shirt with a naked woman mounted like a stuffed fish
with the slogan "mount your catch"; jokes about Jewish American
Princesses; jokes about bitches; jokes about fat women.

And here in soc.men:  Rivero's cute sig "I love women, it's the
bitches I hate!"  (You'd be happy with a woman's sig being "I love
men, it's the pricks I hate!"?  That would be fine, because you know
you're not a prick?)

And the newest round of female bashing about how single mothers drive
their mates to abandon them and then raise kids from hell.

>So the point is men implicitly think of themselves as being WITH women;
>there wouldn't be F-bashing lists because this bashes partner. The
>undercurrent of negative stereotypes is always there for both.

Men think of themselves as being with women, so no female bashing goes
on.  I'll have to remember this whenever I hear a man bashing women.

>One other unfortunate idea is the men's movement is fairly young.
>When women were beginning to see themselves as separate, the men were
>now other and subject to 'bashing', while men did not "know what was
>going on". Now men are separating too and maybe you will get the
>battle of the negative stereotypes.

I agree the men's movement is fairly young.  The fact that you seem to
have missed much of the misogyny in our culture makes me think that
the women's movement still has a long way to go, too.

Xref: sparky soc.men:15995 soc.women:16192 alt.child-support:3053
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
X-To: SUSAN LARSEN
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 03:01:00 GMT

Susan Larsen writes...
SL> In article <1992Aug23.154305.17933@zooid.guild.org> goid@zooid.guild.org (Wi
SL> teeves) writes:
SL> >SB> In article <1992Aug4.133641.27209@news.nd.edu>, slarsen@berlin.helios.n
SL> u
SL> >SB> san larsen) writes:
SL> >SB> >
SL> >SB> > I applaud the fathers, who in their search for legal justice,
SL> >SB> > never lose sight of the needs of their children.  And who would
SL> >SB> > never conceive of casting their own children as villians in the
SL> >      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
SL> >SB> > custodial melodrama.
SL> >
SL> >However, I *would* consider it hypocritical for a person to be of the belie
SL> >that Pro-Female Choice advocates do not think that they are casting unborn
SL> >children as villains, but that Pro-Male Choice advocates *are* doing so.
SL> >

SL> I think I see the point you are trying to make, here.  So I will just have
SL> to say that I fundamentally disagree with equating "unborn" children with
SL> "born" children.


You have misinterpreted my viewpoints, Susan.  I no more equate "unborn"
and "born" children, any more than you do.

However, given that fact, it is my humble and considered opinion that men
should have as much "right to choose" as women ... *during pregnancy*.  This
view clearly does not equate born children with unborn children, therefore.

I too, would be upset with a man knowingly leaving his own child, *after*
birth *and* after having the opportunity to tell the mother his own personal
wishes in the matter.  (However, I would not say this, if the mother had not
notified him until *after* the child was born ; I consider this to be in the
manner of scoundrels, but I do not know whether I would consider the man to
be similarly able to absolve responsibilities where he had had no opportunity
to be made aware of them until after the fact).

We aren't really as far apart as you think, Susan.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * How much deeper would the ocean be without sponges?
Xref: sparky soc.men:16318 soc.women:16475
From: baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: bowling and child support
Date: 14 Sep 92 18:11:35 GMT
Organization: BT North America, San Jose CA.

In article <3662@unisql.UUCP>, wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep13.064525.20969@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
|> >out (as in dating).  She told him that she didn't have any money to go
|> >bowling with him because her child support check hadn't showed up.
|> 
|> 	She might have spent her bowling money on Desitin and formula.

Yes, this is true. Let's say it is. Why was the support payment singled
out as the culprit? She at least has some money coming in from a paycheck
or other source?

Why then didn't she say, "I can't go bowling because I don't make enough"?

Add to what she did the fact that she is possibly telling her child that
it is "daddy's fault" that mommy can't go bowling and the child can't
have a friend over because "the electricity is off becasue daddy's late
with the support again."

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

We have yet to learn that the thing uttered in words is not therefore affirmed. It must affirm itself, or no forms of logic or of oath can give it evidence. 
The sentence must also contain its own apology for being spoken. - R.W.Emerson
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.rape,alt.child-support
From: kls4344@ritvax.isc.rit.edu (Person in flux)
Subject: Re: EuStress Has Trouble With Words
Reply-To: kls4344@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 20:08:12 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.223400.19014@u.washington.edu>, 
hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress) writes:

[list of "people waiting in line to care for the kids" deleted]

But you *STILL* are *assuming* that *someone* other than you will take
responsibility for the child.  I'm asking, what if absolutely no one, not you,
not the biological mother, not the church, not foster parents, not hospitals,
not orphanages, not any organization supported by the tax dollars and court
decisions you hate so much, in short *NO ONE*, would take responsibility for
that child?  Whose bottom line responsibility is it?

It's yours, Mr. EuStress.  And it's your sex partner's.  You were half of the
union that conceived that child and brought it into the world.  You rail and
rant about "the system", and you tell us to stop supporting it with taxes, and
yet you take advantage of many valuable services the system provides, not the
least of which is some support for your child.  

You bought into the system when you had sex.  Like it or not, any time you, a
male, fornicate with a female, both of you run the risk of pregnancy and the
responsibilities incurred therefrom.  That child did *NOT* ask to be born. 
You, rightly or wrongly, brought him into the world, and *YOU* are responsible
for taking care of him.

Now, if you're still reading this far, I want to remark that I have absolutely
no problem with your wish to terminate fatherhood if you've made arrangements
to have your child supported.  You seem to have done that.  Good for you.

My "problem" with your comments is your total disregard, as you express
yourself, for your responsibilities wrt your offspring.  You refuse to *admit*
that you ever had any kind of responsibility, and I cannot respect that.  I 
respect anyone who brings a child into the world and then takes responsibility
for having that child supported, whether directly or through the many other
avenues available.  

Katie
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Male Bashers
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 02:01:20 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.121203.3328@linus.mitre.org> cgates@mitre.org (Curt Gates) writes:
>In article <1992Sep9.190508.4230@news.ysu.edu> ad815@yfn.ysu.edu (John S. 
>Kennedy) writes:
>> It always leaves me wondering ... what could have possibly happened to 
>some
>> of these women to make them hate men so much? 
>> 
>> And, quite possibily, a more important question -- what the heck do they
>> want? 
>
>Why not ask these questions on *that* newsgroup?  I would be interested in 
>reading the answers they give you.

I'd be interested in the answers, too, but I bet I can predict what
they'll say.  "Geez, can't you all take a joke??"  "Why are you so
anal retentive--they're just jokes for christ's sake!"   "They don't
harm anyone, they just let off steam."  "Get a sense of humour for
god's sake!"  

At least, that's been the responses I hear whenever I've complained
about bitch jokes, fag jokes, dyke jokes, "mud people" jokes...

Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
From: tyger@netcom.com (Kitty in the Middle)
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 00:58:24 GMT
Organization:  Boogie Rats on Speed

In article <1992Sep11.234631.9067@u.washington.edu> hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress) writes:
>Sue Larsen wrote:
>     ". . . inheritance and estates are a driving 
>     force in human existence.  It is not something 
>     most folks take lightly."
>
>Just because you're interested in money (from the dad)
>and familial slavery -- doesn't mean that I am!

An inheritance is slavery? Estates? Oh come now! Yes, an inheritance *can*
come from the father, but women can pass on fortunes and such as well. Men are
no longer the only ones with all the money. When my grandfather died in 1974, 
most of what he passed on was merely a bigger and better version of his mother's
holdings that had been bequeathed to him. 

There is also more to an inheritance than just money. In some cases there is
prestige, honor, and possibly even duty, as in the case of a monarchy. These
days a NAME means and awful lot. 

>So this is why women read stupid English 
>royalty novels -- They like the notion of
>getting homes and money from a man (daddy).

I like making my own money, thank you very much. Contrary to your rather narrow
world view, the days when women on the whole were frail, pampered flowers of
femininity supporting their breasts and squeezing their waists with whalebone
stays to look good for some wealthy man are for the most part over. Some women
still want a sugar daddy, but many more are making on their own or *in tandem*
with a man, whether daddy or husband. I would like to be fabulously, 
disgustingly, astoundingly rich, but I'm not and don't look to be unless a 
miracle happens, and I would rather make my own fortune anyway. Any dumb
schmuck can marry for money, and some are lucky enoguh to be born into families
that are wealthy...so what? I'm more impressed by people that make it on 
their own. Also, did you forget the *some* between "why" and "women", or are
you just apallingly ignorant?

   Tyger
-- 
      Kristen Kohlbecker    And I would choose to be with you
      tyger@netcom.com      That's if the choice were mine to make   
                            But you can make decisions too
      A Tyger and a Lady    And you can have this heart to break 
 
                       
        
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: buick@belay (Patrick D. Buick)
Subject: Re: Gender and bathing suits
Organization: Belay Enterprises Inc. Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 22:14:37 GMT

In article <pcgn!hd@lynx.unm.edu> bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
>In article <9208290650.AA08237@cs.utexas.edu> klassen@sol.UVic.CA (Melvin Klassen) writes:
>>Women tend to wear small, hugging, bathing suits,
>>while men tend to wear shorts, which are baggy and long.
>
>>Why don't more men wear tight, revealing, bathing suits?
>
>>Why don't more men wear thong-style bathing suits,
>
>Would *you* wear a lycra-spandex thong bikini?
>
>If not, there's your answer.
>
>Personally, I own a thong bikini, a "sliding front pouch" bikini (that
>is, the fabric that forms the pouch loops around the waist so that you
>can slide it to form a wide or narrow pouch), a pair of Speedo's and a
>pair of boxer trunks.  Which do I normally wear?  The boxers.  Why?
>'Cuz I'm a white boy and the last thing I want to show off when I go
>to the water park is my white-as-the-driven-snow ass.
>
>Besides, we all know that if a male wears a revealing swimsuit, he
>must be gay...showing off his genitals for all to see!
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ooh, is *that* why I get the funny stares!  :-)

>
>-- 
>Brian Evans                |     "Bad mood, bad mood...Sure I'm in a bad mood!
>bevans@carina.unm.edu      |      I haven't had sex...*EVER!*" -- Virgin Mary


-- 
==========================================================
Patrick D. Buick EMT, EET  | Internet: buick%belay@uunet.uu.net
Belay Enterprises Inc.     | Internet: buickp@cuug.ab.ca
Calgary, Alberta, Canada   | UUCP:...!calgary!pixel!belay!buick
Xref: sparky soc.men:16390 soc.women:16560
From: slarsen@monet.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: K-Mark Hostages
Date: 14 Sep 92 16:07:50 GMT
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame

In article <1992Sep11.161645.10192@walter.cray.com> jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood) writes:
>
>---much deleted---

>Let me come over to your house and evict YOU. Take your kid(s) and
>make you pay me 30% of your after tax income to me. Believe you me, 
>I'd keep my gun loaded at night, knowing damn well you'd come
>after me. Why? You can run to the coppers or run to a judge, 
>they'll only laugh at ya. 
>But p.c. sue, we'll move on and forget about it. Won't ya Sue.

I would not take a weapon to the father of my child or any 
strangers, under these circumstances.  Angry, most certainly.
But I would take out my anger by working for change.......
and of course, posting to the net.

Violent acts only serve to remind the public of their 
stereotypical notions about men:  "Oh, your honor, we know 
that all men are capable of taking up weapons when they 
are under stress.  Yet another reason why those beasts 
should not have free access to children. Why, just look 
at the papers, full of stories about men shooting up courtrooms, 
stores, ex-wives."  

Violence will never convince the public and the courts that 
fathers are, indeed, capable parents.


Sue Larsen
slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician)
Subject: Re: Bashers
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 12:55:20 GMT
Organization: Society for the Preservation of E. coli

In article <1992Sep14.185256.26055@tfs.com> ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic) writes:
>maybe when women are earning $1.00 to men's $1.00

Women who work with the same work-pattern as men *do* earn 93-95% of
what men earn (98-100% if starting salary is taken into account).

The problem is that women don't work in the same work-pattern as men.

>I don't know any rapists or men who've used force on women, but the
>statistics say they're out there. Same for child abuse. Hell, alcoholics.

The fact that they exist does not mean they are everywhere or that
every male is like that or wants to be like that (though the study
that showed the majority of college men would commit a rape if they
knew they could get away with it depresses me...however, I've always
wondered what the results would be if that question were asked of
women....)

>You seem to resent something, the things you argue are fairly well
>established so something else is bothering you?

No, they aren't that well established and that's what I resent.

I resent being told that I am more likely to get a job than a woman
(when, in fact, I've been unemployed for a year because all the jobs
that relate to my education and skills require a Q clearance *before*
they'll even *consider* hiring me.  I fail to see what being male or
female has to do with that.)

I resent being told that I'm a rapist at heart when the thought of
having sex with women repulses me (of course, they always assume that
men rape women, not other men...and I wouldn't do that, either...I'm
too quick to ask, "Are you alright?")

-- 
Brian Evans                |     "Bad mood, bad mood...Sure I'm in a bad mood!
bevans@carina.unm.edu      |      I haven't had sex...*EVER!*" -- Virgin Mary
Xref: sparky soc.men:16273 soc.women:16439
From: desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Biological Sex Differences? ("Women only" excusable ?)
Date: 10 Sep 92 23:49:22 GMT
Organization: IDA Center for Communications Research, Princeton

Leonard J. Nissim <nissim@mary.fordham.edu> writes:
>A *basketball* team has a record of six wins and nine losses in its first
>fifteen games.  How many games in a row must this team win, beginning
>with its sixteenth game, to rise to a winning percentage of 55% ?

>    If this is the best example they could come up with, then the test
>is *not* biased at all.  Points: 1.  One need know nothing about
>basketball to answer this question.  One needs to solve the equation
>6+x=0.55(15+x).  The solution is x=5.

This is not correct.  The problem is not just solving the equation
6+x=0.55(15+x), but formulating the equation.  This can be experimentally
tested by giving some students the question as posed, and some students
the question of solving the equation.  I'm sure that many more will get
the question right if they are given the equation.

It seems completely plausible that, in general, more boys than girls
routinely follow sports scores and make use of such statistics, and thus
boys will have a better understanding than girls that "winning percentage"
can be computed as 100*wins/(wins+losses).  This can also be
experimentally tested, by observing if there is in fact a gender bias in
the scores on such questions which is not present on questions without
sports-statistic content.

>2.  Basketball, at the high school and college level, is played by both
>men and women anyway.
>3.  Replace *basketball* with *field hockey*.
>4.  Replace *basketball* with *4-dimensional Martian-steam-polo*.

These points are not germane.  The issue is not basketball, it is
familiarity with the statistics.

                                        David desJardins
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: EuStress Has Trouble With Words
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 8 Sep 92 06:35:55 EST
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <715922404@lear.cs.duke.edu>, gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:
> In article <1992Sep8.002652.15573@smds.com> rh@ishmael.UUCP 
> (Richard Harter) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep7.094652.3937@desire.wright.edu> 
>>sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
> 
>>someone yells foul, one has to look at particulars.  My point was that
>>a system where rulings are made without ascertaining the situation is
>>unjust, even if it produces a fair result by chance.
> 
> What make think that a spoiled girl like Sue will ever
> give a damn about that?

HEY!  I resent that!  First of all, I am not a 'girl', but a woman.  I work
extensively as a volunteer with troubled teens and I have a foster son whom
I love dearly.  What have YOU done for anyone other than yourself lately?

Sue
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: fedrick@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Kelvin W. Fedrick)
Subject: Re: Do Men Have Reproductive Rights?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 04:46:06 GMT


In article <1992Sep8.122518.6630@walter.cray.com> jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood) writes:
>
> The point is Kelvin, the best interests of the children is soaking
>fathers for every dime they can get because the courts, t.v., Hillary,
>the Children's Defense Fund(S FROM MEN), ACES, feminazis and
>Donahues all presume that fathers don't count, just their paychecks.

 Why do I get the feeling you think I am disagreing with the original
 posting? I didn't say anything negative about it! *My* point had nothing
 to do with the greater content of the posting. I simply asked a question.

 Relax and just *read* what I said instead of trying to read stuff *into*
 what I said.

>Kelvin, spend a day at family court. 

 I have. I am still getting reamed and still trying to pay my lawyer off.
 What does this have to do with what I posted?

-kelvin
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Request - Violence Info
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com
Date: 15 Sep 92 10:06:37 GMT
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: Electronic Data Systems, Unigraphics Division, Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: rivero

In article <garry-140992131317@nulla-nulla.rice.edu>, garry@rice.edu (Garry C. King) writes:
> 

  Violence? Well, you want to seat them in front of the single reeds, with
the first chair or concert master closest to the podium!






> For what seems to be the umpteenth time this year,
> the local paper has published a Violence Against Women (TM)
> article which doesn't ring true to me.  Could someone 
> please post or email me recent statistics on interpersonal
> violence ?  
> 
> If my suspicions are correct, it's time for a letter to the editor.
> 
> Many Thanks.
-- 

  Yes, it is time for many letters to many editors..

  You might start out with any of the works by Susanne Steinmetz, the
chairperson of Sociology at Indiana University. She and her associates have
published several studies which show women will initiate domestic violence
just as often as do men, abd will use weapons more often.

  The FBI Supplimentary Crime Statistics will show that men are 5 times
more often to be the victims of random violent street crime than women are.
They will also show that spousal homocide also is a 50/50 affair.

  You might also check out the articles written by U.C. Berkeley
professor Neil Gilbert, who has documented the attempts by feminists to
deliberatly inflate claims for rape and abuse for political gain. 
  
  Several other good pointers are provided in Warren Farrell's book,"Why
Men Are The Way They Are".



<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero        rivero@dev8j.mdcbbs.com     "A Human's Human!"  |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|                       I CAME,  I SAW,  I DIVORCED                      |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women