HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Muffy becomes anti-choice (absolutely false)
Date: 21 Dec 92 18:20:07
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<MUFFY.92Dec18125621@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<1992Dec21.190538.1@d0gslb.fnal.gov>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: holzman@d0gslb.fnal.gov's message of Tue, 22 Dec 1992 01:05:38 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.190538.1@d0gslb.fnal.gov> holzman@d0gslb.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman) writes:
>In article <MUFFY.92Dec18125621@remarque.berkeley.edu>, 
>muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>> No, you have not "chosen to not reproduce" when you have sex using birth
>> control.  You have simply chosen to take a "1/5/10/etc percent *chance*
>> of reproducing" (the actual percentage depends on the type of birth
>> control chosen and how well you use it).  If you gamble and lose, then
>> you have to deal with the consequences.
>> 
>>>And if the birth control fails, then it's certainly
>>>a responsible decision to stick with your original choice.
>> 
>> Exactly.  The choice of "taking a small chance of reproducing."

>Gee, Muffy, does this mean that you're anti-abortion?

Nope.  I consider abortion to be *one way* of "dealing with the
consequences."  A perfectly fine way, by the way, but not by any means
the only one.  All I'm saying is that *both* people have do "deal with
the consequences," not *just* women.

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                      | ~Can you tell me how much bleeding/it
muffy@mica.berkeley.edu            |  takes to fill a word with meaning and/
"amorous inclinations"? Aha! I'm   |  how much how much death it takes/to give
not "not straight," I'm *inclined*.|  a slogan breath?~ - Bruce Cockburn
Xref: sparky soc.women:21948 soc.men:21887 alt.feminism:6624 talk.abortion:53467
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Men's Right to Self-Determination
Date: 30 Dec 92 00:27:28 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Dec29.190139.11562@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In <1992Dec29.031344.19977@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec28.182701.28515@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>>In <1992Dec24.181349.2692@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>>In article <1hb1i8INNf40@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>Unsupported assertion.  Why?  A woman retains the right NOT to legally
>>>>>dissolve all ties, but to REMOVE the fetus from her body.
>>>>
>>>>However, the EFFECT of a successful abortion is NOT ONLY to remove the
>>>>biological dependency, but to also remove the associated financial obligation
>>>>as well. If we parallel the latter, and it would result in more equity.

OK. ONCE AGAIN, SHOUTING!

I SUPPORT THE RIGHT OF ALL MEN TO HAVE UNWANTED PREGNANCIES AND ABORTIONS.
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael)
Subject: Re: Men & Women, "Males & Females"
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 16:06:12 GMT

In <1992Dec20.110910.24188@hemlock.cray.com> acp@cray.com (Anthony Peterson) writes:
>In article <1h0carINN1k9@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell) writes:
>>
>>>I've noticed that many men ( sometimes myself ) get very annoyed by
>>>women/feminists referring to them excluisively as "males".

>>I doubt that most people intend either term as an insult.

>	Wouldn't the term males include male dogs, skinks, goldfish,
>	etc as well as male humans?

Kind of depends on the context of the conversation.  If we are discussing
pets or animals, then surely.  If we are discussing human issues, then
no.  I sincerely doubt we are going to suffer much confusion in this
area. *laugh*

    Michael Stanley (michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism,talk.abortion
From: jay@UUSERV.CC.UTAH.EDU (Jay Deuel)
Subject: Bill Cosbe (was Re: Muffy becomes anti-choice)
Organization: University of Utah Computer Center
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 20:19:10 GMT

>>Gee, Muffy, does this mean that you're anti-abortion?
>
>Nope.  I consider abortion to be *one way* of "dealing with the
>consequences."  A perfectly fine way, by the way, but not by any means
>the only one.  All I'm saying is that *both* people have do "deal with
>the consequences," not *just* women.
>

Whenever I hear a discussion on abortion, I think of a Bill Cosby line.  It 
goes, "I brought you into this world, I can take you out!"  Does this mean 
another option should include putting the decision off for a while?  ;-)
From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: cross posting
Date: 30 Dec 92 23:50:54 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

In article <1hsr3nINN85t@transfer.stratus.com> lmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com writes:

>I think routine X-posting needs to be avoided.  I haven't deliberately
>X-posted to soc.men in a very long time, but find the endless
>X-posts to rave...ahh, talk.abortion much more tiresome.

Ain't it the truth.  Perhaps we can steal from the Mikado --

	I've got a little list,
		I've got a little list,
	The talk.abortionist,
		I've got him on the list,
	I'm sure he won't be missed
		They'll none of them be missed

More verses?


-- 
Richard Harter: SMDS Inc.  Net address: rh@smds.com Phone: 508-369-7398 
US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742.    Fax: 508-369-8272
In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism,talk.abortion
From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Subject: Re: Muffy becomes anti-choice (absolutely false)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 04:53:47 GMT

In article <MUFFY.92Dec21182007@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <1992Dec21.190538.1@d0gslb.fnal.gov> holzman@d0gslb.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman) writes:
>
>>Gee, Muffy, does this mean that you're anti-abortion?
>
>Nope.  I consider abortion to be *one way* of "dealing with the
>consequences."  A perfectly fine way, by the way, but not by any means
>the only one.  

Abortion is not perfectly fine, it is NOT something great or glorious.
It is, rather, a very personal decision.  Intellectually the issue
involves a myriad of values and rights, biological, societal and
intellectual.  It is one of the most "grey" issues humans have ever
faced.

I know lots of people who have had abortions--I have paid for one, and
my brother has paid for one.  It is not something we go around jumping
for joy over.  It was a tough decision.  When my girlfriend from about
seven years ago had the abortion, I couldn't be present--we were 200
miles apart.  She called me afterwards.  Neither of us was "happy."  We
felt a kind of loss, but knew it was the best thing in the long run.

>All I'm saying is that *both* people have do "deal with
>the consequences," not *just* women.

When dealing with the consequences means "dealing with the abortion,"
it's not reason to throw a party either.  "Dealing with the abortion"
means dealing with an intellectual decision to terminate a pregnancy, and
therefore, a probable life that was well underway.  I know of no one who
felt "perfectly fine" about it.  I may be quibbling, but abortion is not
"perfection."  Nor do I believe that you think it is.

Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM 
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism,talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Parallel situations
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1993 07:00:26 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <1993Jan3.034934.11018@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1993Jan02.044059.5171@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>In <1993Jan1.015955.117@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>
>>>What you contributed, Mark, while perhaps true, is irrelevant to the issue at
>>>hand.
>>
>>Actually, what Mark described is *exactly* what I've been talking about.
>
>Then you have done an absymal job of expressing yourself, Larry. In
><1992Dec28.182701.28515@watson.ibm.com>, you said "...there is no financial
>obligation prior to birth." Mark Cochran, on the other hand, has said, in
><1992Dec29.210320.9276@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, "...there most certainly *is*
>formal billing of pregnancy costs before any child is born". If those two
>statements are compatible, it's certainly not obvious HOW...

   Gack! What a moron! Look back through the articles of this thread ...
   We were talking about a billing of the MAN. Sheesh.
         Kevin Darcy, in <1993Jan3.034211.10923@rotag.mi.org>There is no financial obligation on the part of the MAN, unless and until
a child is born.  Expenses are incurred by the WOMAN, for which *she* is
billed, during the pregnancy, but according to the statute you posted,
any financial obligation on the part of the MAN (Gack!  You moron!) is the
result of a paternity suit, which is conditional on the birth of a child.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,alt.women,soc.men
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: Choosing Dangerous Relationships (was: How to Protect Women)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 19:15:29 GMT

In article <168C6A033.SURGDM@mizzou1.missouri.edu> Diane writes:
> 
>I sincerely hope that you are never in an abusive relationship that
>turns into a stalking situation. It is *much* more common than most
>people realize. I was in such a situation, and it is small comfort
>than it is considered so rare as to warrant little consideration in
>the minds of the general public.

The easiest way for a woman to avoid such situations would be to
choose a low-keyed, low-dominance male as her partner. However,
as Paglia notes in her latest book, many women go out of their way to
CHOOSE a high-dominance, high-violence man, because of the greater
excitement in such a relationship. They don't WANT to be abused, but
are willing to undertake such a risk in order to enjoy the 'extra sizzle'
that comes from living on the edge of danger.

It's the same situation as those who undertake sky diving, motorcycle
racing, or any other hazardous sport: "No, I *don't* want to break my
neck. But I get such an adrenaline rush from all these thrills that
I'm willing to take the risk!"


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


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

                   - Friedrich Nietzsche    (The Gay Science: 126)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism,talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Parallell situations (was Re: Muffy becomes anti-choice)
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 18:13:49 GMT

In article <1hb1i8INNf40@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <1992Dec23.162739.1@d0gslb.fnal.gov> holzman@d0gslb.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman) writes:
>>In article <1h8aufINNbs3@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com>, regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com 
>>(Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>> Uh, 
>>> but,
>>> Daniel,
>>> We haven't seen 'a parallell' yet.
>>> We have seen many things, but we haven't seen a parallell yet.
>>> Got one to show us?
>>A parallell has been posted here several times.  Here we go again:
>
>You don't get it, Daniel.  What you posted is not a parallel.

Blatant assertion.

>Ya gotta wonder....

Yeah...

>>During the time that a woman can legally obtain an abortion, less lead time for
>>notification purposes, a man should be able to legally disolve all ties to a
>>fetus.
>
>Unsupported assertion.  Why?  A woman retains the right NOT to legally 
>dissolve all ties, but to REMOVE the fetus from her body.  

However, the EFFECT of a successful abortion is NOT ONLY to remove the
biological dependency, but to also remove the associated financial obligation 
as well. If we parallel the latter, and it would result in more equity.

>Upon what basis do you make this unsupported assertion?  What leads you to
>the conclusion that a woman's right to her physical person is a 'parallell'
>to a man's control  over his wallet 

No-one is saying that. Straw man. A woman's right to terminate her financial
liability to the child AT THE SAME TIME as her unquestioned (by me, at least)
right to terminate her biological connection, should be paralleled by the
right of a man to terminate _his_ financial liability to the child, in 
approximately the time frame.

>(conveniently ignoring the woman's wallet all the while)?

I see you're still trying to mix involuntary, imposed liabilities with 
voluntary contributions, Adrienne. Don't you think that's intellectually
dishonest, since you've been REPEATEDLY corrected on this point? 

>The situation from the very gitgo is not parallel. And that renders the
>rest of it garbage.

Other than biology itself, we, as a society, can make the situations as 
parallel as we want, Adrienne. Child support is inherently an artificial 
social construct anyway, so, in contrast to biology, it CAN be changed.
Why do you push such an extremist, all-or-nothing "if it's not perfectly 
identical, it can't be paralleled" viewpoint? How do you expect to make 
progress on this issue while wearing such heavy, restrictive ideological 
blinders?

>Therefore, I'll just delete the rest until we get this beginning straightened
>out.

Convenient.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: eleanor@cbnews.cb.att.com (Piglet)
Subject: Re: Mothers and daughters
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 19:34:23 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.002617.2758@smds.com> rh@smds.com (Richard Harter) writes:
>
>This article is posted to soc.women.  Please follow it up with
>any topic that you want to discuss.  Change the title line, if
>you like, but please don't add any groups to the distribution.
>
>Maybe something good will happen.

Well, I, for one, think this is an excellent idea.  Wow, a thread
in soc.women that's _not_ about abortion!  Could be a trend....

Mothers and daughters, hm?  How do other women reading here get
along with their mothers?  Do you share similar views?  And do
you agree or disagree on basic philosophies?  Any feminist
mother/daughters?  (Neat Ms. issue, btw.)

My mom and I have always gotten along well (up until a nasty fight
earlier this month--which we seem to have made up from--mostly by
not mentioning it--so that's shaken my view of our relationship
quite a bit).  I don't know where she stands on major feminist
issues, though she's always encouraged me along "traditionally"
feminist paths, and not pushed me in "traditionally patriarchical"
paths.  

For instance, we (3 girls) never taught that marriage was our
goal in life--we had career on the brain from when we were little.
We were never given barbie dolls, or other gender-specific toys,
like makeup or hair-dressing stuff.  (Yuck!)  We got neat stuff
like Tinker Toys and Erector sets and Madame Alexander dolls...
And my dad helped us build this huge dollhouse that I collected
antique furniture for and we got to paint and carpet ourselves.
And he strung lighting for it, too.

I'm getting a little off-track here--I guess Christmas is making
me nostalgic.  

We've stayed away from talking about heavy topics, though.  I
should try her with a subscription to Ms.--see if she likes it.
I came out to myself and some of my friends as bisexual earlier
this year.  I don't dare bring that up with her.  I may in the
future, but it's one of those topics that "we just don't talk
about."  Is it being a Southerner?  Or do all mother/daughter
pairs have these kinds of etiquette?



Piglet, babbling but curious
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism,talk.abortion
From: mitchell@cs.uchicago.edu (Mitchell Marks)
Subject: Update on "home alone" kids in Chicago [Re: Parallel situations]
Reply-To: mitchell@cs.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computer Science
	<1992Dec28.182701.28515@watson.ibm.com>
	<1992Dec30.011753.7937@cs.ucla.edu>
	<1992Dec30.050758.1772@watson.ibm.com>
	<jay.31.725734979@UUSERV.CC.UTAH.EDU>
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 17:52:43 GMT

>>>>> "JD" == Jay Deuel <jay@UUSERV.CC.UTAH.EDU> writes:

  JD> P.S. How about the Chicago couple that left their kids "home
  JD> alone"?

They got home yesterday or today (I'm writing on Wednesday, 30 Dec),
and were immediately arrested.  They were charged with child neglect,
child endangerment, and a third count that I can't remember.

The children were first placed with a grandmother, but now have been
moved into a foster home.  The early news stories said that the
grandmother declared that she found she couldn't take care of them,
but now make it sound more as though DCFS just decided to take them
away.

As far as I've heard, the parents have not made any statement.


[Allcaps warning.]  Usenet is after all supposedly "news", so I
answered with some news even though JD's question seemed to be
directed elsewhere.  But I can't address whatever point he was making
with this example, since I just flash unread through articles on the
POINTLESS, ADSURD, MISGUIDED topics of men's supposed "rights" vis a
vis abortion, and the INFURIATINGLY ILLOGICAL and basically MISOGYNIST
arguments about it based on views about child support.

This is not meant as a personal attack on JD, who for all I know was
trying to provide reasonable answers.  But it is meant as a
generalized attack on the whole thread.

-mm
--
Mitch Marks    mitchell@cs.uchicago.edu
"Oh God comma I abhor self-consciousness" --John Barth
From: bouche2@server.uwindsor.ca (BOUCHER DAVID            )
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Cosmo covers--HOUSE of WAX!
Date: 22 Dec 1992 22:22:58 GMT
Organization: University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada

In article <bc9U02MA2fdy01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> jjh00@diag.amdahl.com writes:
>> Do you men out there truly think that those models are too thin? 

>As a matter of fact, I've never seen a Cosmo
>cover girl that appealed to me in the slightest --

What never ceases to amaze me is that the women on the cover of Cosmo
always look EXACTLY THE SAME!  I am reminded of the old Vincent Price
movie "House of Wax", in which he played a mad sculptor who wanted to 
"preserve" beautiful women forever by killing them and then coating them
with wax.  It seems as though the Cosmo editors have this ONE wax-coated
once-living mannequin, and every month they drag her out of the closet and
dust her off for another cover shot... ;)

- db
From: lmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Laurie Mann)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Date: 23 Dec 1992 13:21:22 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
Reply-To: lmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: ansible.pubs.stratus.com

Mike Coleman writes
>lmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Laurie Mann) writes:
>|But when men commit violence against other men, it's often in connection with
>|some other crime---a gang turf war, a drug deal gone wrong, etc.  When
>|violence is committed against a woman, it can be a random attack, but over
>|half the time it's by an SO or by her ex-SO.
>Speaking as a man, I can tell you that that makes me feel much safer.
>
>Isn't violence just intrinsically bad, or does gender really matter?

Of course it's intrinsically bad.  But if you're a man, you're not
likely to be killed by your SO in your own home as it were.  (Again,
I'm not saying men are never killed by their SOs in their home, just
that, statistically, it happens more often to WOMEN than to MEN.)

This is part of the problem.  Yes, you can come up with counter-examples.
But, for every Reginald Dennehy, there are four Melissa Beniots.

*  In Germany they first came for the Communists, and I didn't speak *
*  because I wasn't a Communist.  Then they came for the Jews, and I *
*  didn't speak because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade *
* unionists, and I didn't speak because I wasn't a trade unionist... *
*Then they came for me--and by that time no one was left to speak up.*
*  Rev. Martin Niemoeller     [Why to March on Washington in April]  *
From: wyk@sparc1.ee.ncku.edu.tw (Jerry Y.G. Wu)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Friend need
Date: 2 Jan 93 04:15:46 GMT
Organization: National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

Hey
 I need a young girl friend 
 Can anybody be my friend in the net ?
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,alt.women,soc.men
From: Diane
Subject: Re: How to Protect Women
Organization: University of Missouri
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 11:23:29 CST

In article <1992Dec23.164510.4429@netcom.com>
payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
 
>Maybe I am uninformed in this, but are not your chances of drowning in a
>swimming pool many times greater than those of becoming a stalking victim?
>I mean, even in abusive relationships, this is extremely rare, to the
>best of my knowledge.
>
>So while the possibility may be real, it does not reasonably look like
>a prime consideration, even in abusive relationships.
>
>Rich
 
I sincerely hope that you are never in an abusive relationship that
turns into a stalking situation. It is *much* more common than most
people realize. I was in such a situation, and it is small comfort
than it is considered so rare as to warrant little consideration in
the minds of the general public.
 
People who are in an abusive situation have usually become very aware
of what their abuser can be expected to do in given situation. If a person
could reasonably expect, based on past experience, that his/her abuser
would stalk, I would have to respect that evaluation. It is extremely annoying
to me that so many "haven't been there; didn't do that" people can have such
definite ideas about what other people should do or think in extraordinarily
stressful and dangerous circumstances.
 
Diane
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: naeem@occs.cs.oberlin.edu (Naeem Mohaiemen)
Subject: Re: cosmo covers--models too thin?
	<bc9U02MA2fdy01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>
Organization: Oberlin College Computer Science
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 04:34:08 GMT
X-Posted-From: occs.cs.oberlin.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <bc9U02MA2fdy01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> jjh00@diag.amdahl.com (Joel Hanes) writes:


   > Do you men out there truly think that those models are too thin? 

      What absurd clothing and hair.  A woman who really
      looks like that, on _any_ occasion, must be both
      stupid and amazingly self-absorbed.


   ---
   Joel Hanes

------

Well, i don't write off women like that so completely. The main problem I
have is with bombarding female America, esp. younger, more impressionable
segment, with airbrushed images that majority of them cannot ever hope to
reach. High suicide rates, depression, low self esteem, anorexia, bulimia
among women-- how much of this can be traced back to this media bombardment?

Naeem Mohaiemen
--

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------



Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism
From: sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell)
Subject: Happy Solstice
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 15:56:47 GMT

	Today is my last day of net access this year.  My labs are closing
until Jan 4 1993, the first new year out of the Reagan-Bush era;)!

	Everyone have a happy solstice!

Practice Safe Sex !  Dont drink and drive!

See You All Next Year!

Steve
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism,talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity