HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: pro-choice == pro-(womens' only) choice?
Date: 11 Apr 92 16:05:47 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

In article <kue1sgINN4u1@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com (Dances with Drums) writes:
>In article <1992Apr09.192216.11330@digibd.com> merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes:
%Hillel, am I ever going to get an answer from you about the
%traffic accident analogy?  You know, where the driver of the
%car hits a pedestrian and later wants to limit his liability
%so charges of manslaughter don't "destroy his life" ...

Merlyn dear, I don't care about your analogy, I care about laws that
people can live with.  If you are so interested in the game of "I can
find analogies and/or legal arguments to justify the oppression of
people" then please go and play in talk.abortion.  People with your
mind set of "people should serve the laws" post there much too much.  

I suspect that you don't play in talk.abortion because you don't have a
good answer to their analogies and you can't argue that an unwanted
pregnancy destroys a people's life after you told us all how much you
don't care when an unwanted pregnancy destroys a man's life.

What a winter hypocrite.
From: rdh@Veritas.COM (Robert Hartman)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: The Getting Screwed Saga...
Date: 15 Apr 92 02:37:49 GMT
Organization: VERITAS Software

In article <1992Apr14.143419.1280@bvc.edu> stougheric@bvc.edu (The Wease) writes:
>
>	Hi, my name's Eric and I'm a compulsive dater...haha...
> ... I met and soon started 'dating' Jules ...  all along there was
>a guy on the back burner ...  during Christmas break, I got
>fed up with it, knowing that he was in her hometown, I told
>her it had to be him or me...and she responded by saying she
>wasn't prepared to break his heart like that, so she broke mine...
>I was pretty down, and lonely for the next week until I met Terra ...

Well, it's a drag when you lose a relationship that you feel strongly
about.  I'd suggest in future that you take more than a week to sort
out your feelings.  Sounds like you got betrayed there, and dealing
with that takes some time.

> ... no matter how
>much time I spent with her my feelings for her never became as
>strong as the feelings I had for Jules...anyway...

Of course not.  You hadn't gotten over Jules yet.

>	I sucessfully avoided Jules for a month and a half...
>then she came to me one day ...  I will admit that some things
>happened between us that day, things which I am DEEPLY ashamed of,
>and that I have paid for...and am STILL paying for...but I never
>gave up Terra for Jules...

Well, everyone makes mistakes, and when you're overmatched in a
relationship like that, it's hard to "just say no."  So stop
punishing yourself for what happened.  Next time you end a
relationship with someone, make it a clean break and take the
time you need to grieve the loss.  You're not a wimp for doing that.
That's what makes you strong, and better able to take care of yourself
in future relationships.

>	A couple weeks later I told Terra everything, except
>the time Jules and I got...involved...I honestly wanted to, ... 
>but I made a mistake and gave my word to Jules that I wouldn't tell ...

Yup.  You made a mistake.

>I know this must sound like I was saving my ass, but if any of
>you actually knew me, you'd know how I feel about lying to
>save yourself ...

Nope.  Sounds like you found yourself in a bind, and didn't use
good judgement.  Maybe your feelings were clouded by lingering
longings for Jules.  Hey, it happens.  The right place to put
energy is into not getting into such a bind again.

> ... it was quickly forgotten until Jules went to Terra and told
> her straight out ... no matter
>what I did, Jules seemed to have me covered, or maybe I'm 
>just paranoid

This Jules sounds like bad news.  You weren't ready for Terra.
I know it hurts right now, but believe me: you bettah off.

-r
From: firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: You want to win.
Date: 14 Apr 92 16:55:41 GMT
Organization: Software Engineering Institute

In article <1992Apr14.025246.17377@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> hpzg0650@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Hale P Zengingonul) writes:

>  I can't believe there are women around who are against abortion.

Given that, worldwide, the biggest single use of abortion is to kill
unwanted female foetuses before they become unwanted girl babies,
and given that a recent UNESCO report estimated that, in the past
decade, more than one hundred million surplus females had been
disposed of by abortion and infanticide, I have no problem in
believing that some women are against abortion.

The interesting question, surely, is this: how long until women
who are for abortion have eliminated themselves from the gene pool?
From: jbrown@milton.u.washington.edu (Jeffery Brown)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: woman's choice of bio father in marriage
Date: 16 Apr 92 21:07:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Apr16.210751.20741
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

Jim Bowery asked:
> How do people feel about making the choice of biological father
> legally the woman's choice without the knowledge or consent of
> the husband?

That violates part of the agreement made in the marriage.

Classically -- and marriage is a classical institution -- part of the
deal is sexual fidelity by both partners, and an explicit part of the 
benefits to the man is a guarantee that children in the marriage were
biologically his; in exchange for this he gives up sexual freedom and
contributes the lion's share of the economic support for the wife and
the family.  Cuckoldery was again classically not only grounds for 
divorce but also homicide.  Classically.

I don't hold with quite so classical a vision of marriage; but I make
it explicitly clear that I, personally, consider cuckoldery just as 
gross a violation of the marriage contract as abandonment.  It would 
be a fundamental violation of any marriage agreement I would make,
and that strong a violation would cause me to leave.  Not only leave,
but LEAVE.  Cash out all my possessions and interests, cross international 
boundaries, and become untraceable.  I'm not trying to have it both ways,
because I hold myself to that same strict code of fidelity; I don't sleep 
around, and back when I was available I absolutely would not sleep with a 
married woman.

To me, letting the woman have the option to covertly choose biological
fathers voids most of the reasons men should enter a marriage contract.
If that is the standard, then getting married (for a man) is signing up 
for basically uncompensated indebture.  
---
Jeff Brown         
Astronomy Dept.    jbrown@u.washington.edu
U. of Washington   jbrown@phast.phys.washington.edu
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: SNUFF FILMS sighted
Keywords: HEY WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING HERE FOR? SET THE FOLLOWUP LINE CORRECTLY!
Date: 10 Apr 92 22:21:45 GMT
Reply-To: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Distribution: na
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <1992Apr10.165017.1@vm2.cis.pitt.edu> tjw+@pitt.edu writes:
>"Pornography currently has more protection than women do", MacKinnon told the

	I've never gotten all that much out of porn because I can usually
think up better stuff than they put in those movies and magazines... 
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
From: bev@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu (Beverly Huntsberger)
Subject: Re: Is this a case of sex discrimination?
Organization: Univ. of South Carolina, Columbia
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 17:21:52 GMT

In <1992Apr7.155440.27794@gdr.bath.ac.uk> chpetk@gdr.bath.ac.uk (Toby Kelsey) writes:

>Do you think a company which refuses to employ
>women for no justifiable reason is not being
>sexist if job applications are handled by a woman?

>      Toby


	No. "...A company which refuses to employ women for
	no justifiable reason..." is breaking the law and
	more importantly is self-defeating and doing themselves
	and their stock holders a great disservice.

	The same would be true even if "job applications
	are handled by a woman". The reason I feel the 
	analogy is fatally flawed, is because "handling
	job applications" at one company is not nearly
	as all-powerful as having the overwhelming
	power-brokerage over the entire country's legal
	system that is currently maintained by a relatively
	small, unrepresentative "class" of people.

	Can you come up with an example which more
	closely resembles the conditions of the colonies
	just before we started throwing King George's
	tea into Boston Harbor?

	Bev
-- 
-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Just read his lips:
Now, he wants us to believe in the "tooth fairy".
-	-	-	-	-	-	-
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Smelling The Roses
Date: 7 Apr 92 15:38:27 GMT
Reply-To: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <1992Apr5.170654.12024@midway.uchicago.edu> learn@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (William Vajk (igloo)) writes:
>life. I thought a job was a means towards personal ends. It sounds to me as 
>though you've bought into a hyped set of priorities. I know these things 
>happen sometimes. 

	Stop feeling sorry for me.  A job is a means to an end, in this
case a combination of professional satisfaction and enough dollars to
be able to do what we really want in a little while.  The only thing I've
"bought into" is Unisql, Inc.  Wanna buy a database?

>That was the time I started laughing and smiling again, and started telling 
>anyone who tries to pressure me as mercilessly as they have in the past that 

	But I laugh *all* *the* *time*...  In fact, I'm laughing right
now.

	I'm actually sorta confused, though...  This all started out with
"Your company should pay for women to take a year or so off to have babies
because they deserve it", and my pointing out that a place like Unisql
*can't* pay salaries to people who aren't producing - we don't have that
kind of cushion yet - then moved to a bunch of pissing and moaning about how
companies should support Family and Apple Pie and all that stuff even if it 
means they go out of business because Family and Apple Pie and all that stuff
is what's **really** important anyway and ended up with a bunch of sour grapes
"Well, I got screwed so you will too.  Better quit while you're ahead and
go work at Burger King so you can spend more time with your family" bullshit.
What's the point?  That since Bill got the shaft 25 years ago on a government
contract I should quit my job since my dreams can never come true and anyway
I have to work too hard to make them happen? Feh.




From: kurts@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Kurt Strain)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1992 19:02:57 GMT
Subject: Re: SIDS as population control?!?!
Organization: Milky Way Galaxy
Newsgroups: soc.men

The most interesting thing about USENET is it's uncanny ability to have
enough people out there that no matter what you say it will be taken by
some brain dead individual with a weird agenda to read bad things into 
what is being written just to be able to respond in verbal abuse.  

Motives are always twisted to try to get a person to look bad, just like
worthless presidential candidates taking trivial and meaningless garbage
out of context to back-stab the opponent.  Being on this net is a lot like
going on as a candidate.  If you want to look good, don't look at the 
whole problem and come up with an Easth-saving agenda, kiss a few babies 
instead.
Xref: sparky soc.men:8383 soc.women:8921 alt.flame:6699 alt.fan.q:410
From: mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mikeey J. Lin)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.flame,alt.fan.q
Subject: Re: Q the fake
Date: 14 Apr 92 00:26:15 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York


	I would like to see this "Q" character in person.
Hmmm... I wonder what size shovel he's using? 

						Mikeey
				    mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Subject: Re: pro-choice == pro-(womens' only) choice?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, San Diego Division
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 1992 15:10:18 GMT

In article <1992Apr3.051045.14314@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Mar30.232632.26244@sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>In article <ktf5coINN2b2@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com (Dances with Drums) writes:
>>>In article <1992Mar30.200846.15452@sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>>>Because her body is being put to FURTHER use that she does not consent to.
>>>>It hasn't anything to do with the fetus per se but it has everything to do
>>>>with being pregnant when one does not wish to be pregnant.  Since the man 
>>>>isn't pregnant, he is uninvolved.
>>>    Are you not forcing the man to work without his consent?  Example:
>>
>>"you are telling him" happens to be excruciatingly inaccurate.  I am not
>>telling him diddly, and I have not stated my opinion (so far in this text)
>>on the current state of affairs.  Don't leap to conclusions so quickly, ktf.
>>It gets your feed muddy.
>
>If it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, then we call it "a duck",
>Adrienne. Your insistence that the man is "uninvolved" in pregnancy speaks
>volumes about your attitude towards us "invisible" men...

Only to those who have a heck of a hard time telling apples from oranges.

The man *is* uninvolved in the physical aspects of pregnancy, Kevin, his
best wishes and sympathy create no rights stream.

>>b) can we command specific performance of a contract (even assuming a
>>binding contract existed, which it doesn't)?  No.
>
>Who's talking about specific performance? We're talking about child support
>liability here (read: $$$) not specific performance....

WRT child support liability, BOTH parents have it.

>If RvW gets overturned, then safe, legal abortion will become a "what-if
>scenario", won't it? Can we expect the same conservative attitude in that
>case?

Probably not.

>So, you are perfectly comfortable with the structural inconsistency then?

Actually, no, Kevin, I'm not, as you would KNOW if you bothered reading
what your knee is jerking at.

Since you don't, I do not find it altogether surprising that you don't
end up with rational arguments.

And if you want to take *this* into yet another meta-discussion, Kevin,
I won't oblige you.  Be sure to keep this line intact in any response.

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: soc.men
From: tron@tc.fluke.COM (Peter Barbee)
Subject: Re: The Gender Lie
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 20:18:07 GMT

In article <L7RViB1w164w@netlink.cts.com> jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
>The following view of behavior is having a profound impact on society:
> 
>* For the most part, gender differences are acquired during development.
> 
>* For the most part, homosexuality is congenital.
> 
>The conclusion:
> 
>On practical as well as theoretic grounds, the evolutionarily
>inconsistent view of gender and orientation is profoundly destructive
>and should be abandoned.

Your observations are, for the most part, inarguable.  The problem with
your reasoning is that you have not shown any causative relationship
between these "inconsistent views" and your observations.  I would, in
fact, argue that society adopting these views is another symptom and
not a cause.

Peter B
From: mrharri@jake.cc.wayne.edu (Marissa Harrison)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: A neat story, and a question.
Date: 14 Apr 92 20:49:50 GMT
Organization: Wayne State University, Detroit

In article <FXBL_3C@ais.org> chungkuo@ais.org (Shawn FitzGerald) writes:
>I work in a computer lab at a community college in Michigan. Whiloe working,
>a group of users and another consultant were engaged in conversation with
>me. Topics included masturbation, sex, feminism, and religion. A user
>overheard some thing I said, most of which she found offensive. It should be
>noted that I did not start this conversation, in addition I also tried to
>quite it down when it seemed to be getting too loud. I am now in Deep Doo
>Doo, or at least there is a very real potential for me to be in said Doo
>Doo.
>
[Stuff deleted]

>
>"Oh, and if I offended you I'm sorry, but maybe you needed to be offended.
>Well, here's my apology and one more thing. FUCK YOU!!"
>    --Suicidal Tendancies
>
>-- 
>   Shawn FitzGerald           |   chungkuo@ais.org
>   (Rational Romantic         |   University of Michigan
>    Mystic Cynical Idealist)  |   Computing Club
>"I love you so I keep dreaming . . ." -Bananas, _The House of Blue Leaves_

Wow, I was kind of sympathetic until I got to the last part.  With an
attitude like that, I can see why you got in trouble!  Whew!!

Marissa
From: stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Children as property--Was Re: pro-choice=pro women's choice
Date: 7 Apr 92 18:36:58 GMT
Distribution: na

Paul Ciszek writes
+ 
+ I think you are comparing different classes of entities here.  Minors are
+ human beings who do not have the full rights of citizenship; there are
+ many such people.  Visiting foreigners, for example, or those who are
+ "not fit to look after their own affairs", which catagory includes
+ children.  That does not make them any less human in the eyes of the law,
+ and they certainly are not property.

In which case, family courts should appoint a lawyer to look after the
child's interests in the divorce proceedings. In fact, it should be this
lawyer that obtains and enforces child support as well as _visitation_
rights.

But that doesn't happen, does it?

K'Char
From: stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Japanese Women's Lib
Date: 7 Apr 92 18:47:59 GMT
Distribution: na

Jim Bowery writes
+ How and why do American males feel about the increasing liberation 
+ of Japanese women?

Why should I feel anything at all about this? Let them do what they 
want.

But why "male" and "women" instead of "men" and "women" or "male" and
"females"?

K'Char
From: slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: You want to win(Men's rights and Women's rights).
Date: 15 Apr 92 19:02:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Apr15.190209.5648
Organization: University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame

In article <703350773@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>In article <1992Apr13.203829.19036@news.nd.edu> slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu 
>(susan larsen) writes:
>
>>For the sake of argument, assume that Suzanne here is 
>>correct in her assumption that abortions will become 
>>illegal.  Let us leave the exceptions to be cases of 
>>rape, incest, and overt threat to maternal health.
>
>>How would the picture change?  How should it change?
>>Or would it?
>
>My idea is to have choice for men if and only if abortion
>is legal in the state where the future mother lives.
>
>The idea is that if it is *her* choice not to have an abortion 
>then she should be the one who pays for that choice (or gives
>the newborn up to adoption).
>
>Fair enough?

To answer your question, no, not quite fair enough.

In principle, your suggestion of allowing a man an 
opportunity to exempt himself from rights/responsibilities 
to future children would serve to protect men who 
make innocent mistakes from falling under the financial 
control of evil mothers to be.  There is certainly merit 
in this.

However, the plan would remove from men, generally, any 
need to use birth control, because mistakes could so 
readily be avoided by signing off.  For every evil, 
scheming woman, there is a reckless, feckless lothario 
that would have no qualms about impregnating numerous 
women and walking away, leaving progeny for the state 
to contend with.

So I would suggest amending your original suggestion by 
adding a "three strikes, you're out" clause.  A man would 
be required to file his support exemptions with the courthouse.
On the third request, the man would have to show medical 
proof that he has obtained a vasectomy, thereby obviating 
the need for any further support exemptions. No vasectomy, 
no third exemption will be granted.

I believe honest mistakes can be made once.  Maybe twice.  
The third occasion would say to me that this given man is 
irresponsible and incapable and/or unwilling to support any 
of his progeny.   Therefore, a physical commitment to 
birth control on the part of this given man should be required.

Sue Larsen
slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu
From: kurts@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Kurt Strain)
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 21:49:03 GMT
Subject: Re: SIDS as population control?!?!
Organization: Milky Way Galaxy
Newsgroups: soc.men

In soc.men, judy@locus.com (Judy Leedom Tyrer) writes:





> We have large undeveloped areas in this country.  

I vote to keep them that way.  
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Dworkin and MacKinnon Rule!
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 23:17:07 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.051549.1963@Veritas.COM> rdh@Veritas.COM (Robert Hartman) writes:
)In article <8gzjj8n.sheaffer@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:

)>I wish this were true! MacKinnon is the one who INVENTED the very
)>"crime" of "sexual harassment"

)Well, I don't think that she invented anything.  She may well have
)named it it for the crime it is.  Now that it's been named, I think
)that it's pretty clear what it means.

<cough cough cough>

Sexual harassment as it is actually described in the current policies
is neither clear or a 'crime'.


)I think it's also pretty clear
)that condoning it doesn't make this a better or a freer or a more
)powerful society.  Quite the contrary.  And so, and no doubt despite
)their feelings about _her,_ people have recognized the truth in it.
)MacKinnon wasn't able to push her anti-porn agenda.  One can argue
)the case that porn isn't a crime.  One would be hard pressed to argue
)the case that sexual intimidation or blackmail is a form of protected
)speech.

Yes, but sexual harassment doesn't mean sexual intimidation or blackmail
by the actual official definition.  Some people seem to think that because
the definition includes these actions, all 'sexual harassment' must be
one of these actions.  This is simply false.

)So, is she really all that powerful and threatening?  Or did she
)just happen to get one right?  (And if she got one right, doesn't
)it behoove us to grant her that?)

She got it wrong, and the Supreme court bought off on it - with some other
help here and there.

She's bright enough to have written something clear and addressing only
sexual intimidation and blackmail if that's what she wanted - and Thomas
was bright enough to push for reasonable legislation if he wanted.  (Dunno
about the court :-) - maybe they *aren't* bright enough to figure it out :-()

Nope - what she actually wrote is something that can and is being used to
further her 'anti-porn' agenda, because of its vagueness.
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
From: chrz@tellabs.com (Peter Chrzanowski)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Japanese Women's Lib
Date: 6 Apr 92 23:08:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: tellab5.1992Apr6.230823.25610
Organization: Tellabs, Inc.

In article <HaqqiB1w164w@netlink.cts.com>, jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
> How and why do American males feel about the increasing liberation 
> of Japanese women?

I think it's interesting in the sense that Japanese culture is interesting
to watch, particularly as it changes.

I also think I don't know nearly enough about Japanese culture to
presume to tell Japanese what they should or shouldn't do in Japan.