HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jrr@nsc.nsc.com (Jerry Roe)
Subject: Re: Denied visitation by
Organization: National Semiconductor, Santa Clara
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 18:34:35 GMT

In article <1992Aug23.154421.18017@zooid.guild.org> goid@zooid.guild.org (Will Steeves) writes:
>
...(discussion of various remedies for denial of visitation)...
>
>Actually, some members of In Search Of Justice, Canada's largest Men's Rights
>group, suggested that the CP be penalised by a reduction in child support
>and/or alimony payments for each withheld visitation.

Aha, I see the problem is not just related to us folks down south.
Glad to know there's a Canadian movement as well (well, not GLAD, I'm
sorry you have the problem up there too, but you know what I mean...).

I think the answer to denial of visitation is to change custody.  If
there is court-ordered visitation and it's thwarted by the CP, then by
George give custody to the NCP.  In some states, at least, there is a
provision built into the law that says denial of visitation is to be
considered (rebuttable) presumptive evidence that the CP is not acting in
the best interests of the child, and therefore the NCP should be given
custody.  I don't think it's enforced much, but at least it's there.

>
>In fact, many denied fathers are already wielding this form of punishment
>(mind you, they go a bit TOO far and withhold ALL support, more often than
>not), and I think that it's time for the legal system to get off its
>collective posteriors and DO SOMETHING to enforce visitation rights as well
>as harassing dads for child support!

Now THAT's something I can get behind.  {:^)

>---
>Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"


Jerry Roe		National Congress for Men
			FREE
			Children's Rights Council (nee' National Council for
			  Children's Rights)
jrr@nsc.nsc.com		...!{sun,pyramid,decwrl)!nsc!jrr
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: colombo@bronco.fnal.gov
Subject: Re: Unisex bathrooms? How about coed!
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: Fermilab Computing Division
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 21:06:31 GMT


In my day, unisex bathrooms were all the rage.  But when I dropped my
step-son off at a college dorm, I went to use the bathroom and I couldn't
find it. He said there's only ONE bathroom per floor, showers and all!!!
There were no urinals, just one stall without a door or toilet seat.  At
least the shower stalls were for individual use and had plastic curtains.


 ___________________________________________________________________________
 *****  *   *  From the e-net desk of: Rick Colombo CD/DCD/DSG    *    *
 *      **  *  Fermi Nat'l Acc'l Lab   708-840-8225 Fermilab     * *   *
 ***    * * *  P.O. Box 500   MS 369   Feynman Computer Center  *****  *
 *      *  **  Batavia, Ill. USA 60510 Colombo@fnal.fnal.gov    *   *  *****
 *  Sure to get `Flamed' if I didn't cross all my i's and dot all my t's ;-)
Xref: sparky soc.men:15829 soc.women:16054 alt.feminism:390
From: jamie@sirius.digital.co.jp (James Lyall)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Feminists ignore Cosmetics?
Date: 2 Sep 92 02:45:11 GMT
	<1992Aug24.112004.1@mdcbbs.com>
	<1992Aug25.143622.9395@midway.uchicago.edu> <7353@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: Digital Electronics Corp., Osaka, Japan
In-reply-to: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk's message of 26 Aug 92 17:22:41 GMT


eff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:

>(someone else) writes:

>>| In the Middle East, women are raised to always cover their faces with  |
>>| viels. Modern feminists point to this practice as proof of how these   |
>>| women are oppressed. Yet here in the Western (so called) Civilized     |
>>| countries, women are raised to cover their faces with cosmetics, to    |
>>| the tune of 50 billion dollars a year. In this regard, American women  |
>>| are just as oppressed as their eastern sisters while having to pay far |
>>| more for the priviledge.

>"Just as oppressed"?  Really?  Is colouring one's face "just as
>oppressive" as covering it?  Is there no difference in the two cases
>if a woman fails to follow the "required" practice?

>>Read some Naomi Wolf sometime.

>Does Naomi Wolfe use cosmetics?  She doesn't seem to avoid jewelry...

I found it somewhat ironic that Naomi Wolf is a very beautiful woman.
(At least according to what I have learned to consider beautiful)

I thought the claim that "American women are just as oppressed as their
eastern sisters" to be a bit absurd.  American (or shall we say Western)
women are free to choose how they present themselves, although I
certainly believe that in some instances they may suffer discrimination
based on their choices.

Here in Japan the situation is quite different, and the above comparison
not so far from the mark.  In order to be accepted in almost any part of
the society, it seems that (young) women are required to present a VERY
feminine (and certainly not feminist) image.  If I ever see a Japanese
woman without garishly bright lipstick, foundation, rouge, eyeshadow,
mascara and perfume, I will drop everything and rush over to ask her
a) if she has a bike and b) if she has plans for dinner.  I've been here
a year and am still looking.

I hope within my generation, men and women will be judged on the same
standards of physical appearance.

Jamie Lyall
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: mandatory WIMPS
Date: 23 Aug 92 23:21:27 GMT
Followup-To: soc.women,soc.men
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA

In article <4940@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood) writes:
>I've seen some interesting mYn at womYn's rallies on ABC World News Tonight
>crying about how awful men are.  They have scruffy beards and quivering lips
>and would gladly have a sex change to be on the "winning side".
>
>Sheesh!  What WIMPS! ;-)

What bothers you about them?  The beards?  The scruffiness of the
beards?

I thought this was an issue (minor, albeit) in the men's movement,
that men are often forced to shave when they prefer to grow facial
hair.
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Subject: Re: Bob is NOT the benefactor that he claims to be.
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 11:31:53 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.125015.25259@wolves.uucp> woody@wolves.uucp (Woody Muller) writes:
>>Woody Muller writes
>>>EuStress, if you want to win, you've got to play the game.
>>
>>   Why do you think that I can only "win" if
>>   I give-up and play on you side of the net?
>
>The game I speak of is the legal system.  It can be manipulated to your
>advantage, but only if you are smart enough to figure out the rules and
>beat them at their own game.  You are one of several people of the net
>who think that by crying and screaming your moral outrage, justice might
>suddenly drop out of the sky like a cupie doll.
>
>In reality, the system rewards those who know how to work the system,
>and clobbers naive starry-eyed youths like you who think they can ignore
>it.  You are quite obviously clobbered and bitter about it.   But you'll
>get little sympathy from the net, because you gave up the fight before
>you even started it.  I am continually amazed by the fool who would navigate
>the Amazon without a guide, or would navigate the legal system without
>a lawyer.  If he's eaten by crocs, I feel little sympathy.
>
>Frankly, I think you're hurting the cause of Male Rights by providing 
>the opposition with a ready stereotype of the irresponsible uncaring
>father who neither wants nor deserves children.  What you really ought 
>to be doing is working out a compromise settlement, negotiating some
>visitation to increase over time, and learn to be a dad.
>
>-- 
>wm

	Woody,

	I agree with your premise.  But not with the point or outcome.

	Sadly, people that can work the system make out.  But it
	is still a very valid objection that people have, that
	justice should not literally mortgage your entire future
	with legal bills.

	There are all kinds of people on this net.  Some have been
	raked over the coals.  To hold them up as the example of
	what "must be done" to get by in our legal system does
	no more than highlight the problem, rather than show examples
	of what kind of hell one must go through to be heard.

-- 
	Alan Yasutovich
	"inquiring  (and nosey) minds WANT TO KNOW!!!"
	I can remember when "safe sex" meant having a padded headboard!!
	Tick Tock.....Tick Tock......Tick Tock .....Tick Tock......
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
From: biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel)
Subject: Re: "A Feminist" (was Re: Barbara H.)
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 16:21:48 GMT

cook@dollar.crd.ge.com (Cathi Cook) writes:

...[in reference to a typical Rivero post]...

>Over and over and over again on the net, I've encountered the phrase
>"a feminist".  As in "A feminist told me I couldn't be a feminist 
>because I'm a man."  "A feminist told me there's no parallel between
>abortion rights and child support."  "I know a feminist who wouldn't
>shave her legs to save her life."

>Just HOW are you guys defining "a feminist"?

Oh dear, the olde 'who is a real feminist' topic again.

Anyone who calls herself a feminist is presumed to be one. The burden of
disproof is upon the skeptic. That puts G. Steinem and A. Dworkin in the
same category, ludicrous as that may be. It's also inconvenient for most
feminists, and provides ready ammunition for the snipers from the sidelines.

It's a common burden with any ideological movement: the Maoists have
Sendero Luminoso, the Republicans have David Duke, the National Socialists
have Adolf Hitler. (yes, this is INTERNET, so this reference is obligatory)

Rivero:
>|>  Look, I agree that there's some question of taste in the relationship with
>|>the 21 year old, but to actually HOPE two small children were really sexually
>|>molested so that Woody gets his comeuppance???????????  This is not a woman
>|>I would want raising MY kids!

Why would anyone take seriously the comments of someone who finds it necessary
to append 11 question marks to a rhetorical question? Presumably, the audience
has enough sense to be able to tell shit from Shinola. If they don't, why
bother to post?

Regards,
       H. Biesel
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Censorship, perhaps?
Followup-To: soc.women,soc.men
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 92 22:44:08 GMT

In article <stricher-180892000116@stayman.ocean.fsu.edu> stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul) writes:
>Loren I. Petrich wrote:
>
>> 	Melinda Shore posted a satire there recently calling for the
>> Claytoon's fellow Optilink employees to ostracize him or be known as
>> seeing nothing wrong with crude bigotry, if not actual supporters of
>> it.
>
>Satire? Or censorship? I get my ass toasted for suggesting that
>"main stream" feminists might want to put some distance or even
>out right comdemnation of some of the more bizarre and hateful
>statements made by the "radical" feminists, or be thought of as
>"seeing nothing wrong with crude bigotry, if not actual supporters
>of it". [nice quote, BTW]

Shore's post was a poke at Cramer's insistence that, unless every
lesbigay in existence states that NAMBLA is a group of sickos,
lesbigays support child molesters.

I find your insistence that all feminists are responsible for every
feminist somewhat similar.  

>This is Political Correctness in it's pure state - think the way
>we do, or else.

Well, if it bothers you when someone proclaims that all men are
potential rapists, why doesn't it bother you when someone proclaims
that all feminists are man-haters?

Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support
From: dennisp@kpc.com (Dennis Preston)
Subject: Re: Break-ups
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Inc, Santa Clara, CA
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 23:02:19 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.211625.24999@news.nd.edu> slarsen@haydn.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:
>In article <1992Aug28.204354.11394@u.washington.edu> hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress) writes:
>>Alan Yasutovich writes
>>> I always believed that, for some reason
>>> I can't fully explain, marriages broke up some
>>> time around the birth of a child.
>>
>>   Woody Allen started his affair with
>>   Soon-Li(?) less than a month after he
>>   adopted 2 of Mia's kids.
>>
>>   People hate enslavement.
>
>Ouch!  Maybe it can be claimed that men are forced 
>into biological parenthood, but it is pretty far-
>fetched to suggest that a man can be forced into 
>adoption.
>
>Sue Larsen
>slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu

Not OUCH!. My marriage began to break up with the birth of my son. I
wish I knew why. Everything seemed to change, especially my ex-wife's
attitude toward life. I've been watching and occasionally responding
to posts to this group. I'm familiar with the horror stories. I have
but one question. WHAT THE HELL HAPPENS TO WOMEN AT 30 ??????


Newsgroups: soc.men,talk.abortion
From: jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood)
Subject: Re: Father Notification Reconsidered
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 4 Sep 92 10:29:09 CDT

In article <1992Sep3.235935.12875@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>Mr Aznabul deleted all of Will Steeve's comments explaining that he'd
>might kill a woman "on the spot" who DARED to tell him of getting an abortion
>"a year ago".
>
>Which resulted in my comment.......
>                                  |
>> = (Char Aznabul) writes:        |
>>> = Steve Novak wrote:           |
>                                  V
>>> I feel sorry for any woman dumb enough to fall for a walking time bomb
>>> like you, Will.
>
>>My goodness, aren't we the epitomy of sympathy.
>
>My goodness, aren't we the epitome of honesty.
>
>>Ps. Sorry for dripping sarcasm on your keyboards.
>
>I think that was drool, Char.  Now, wipe it up and go back to sucking up
>to Will.
>
>-- 
>+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
>+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>steven@advtech.USWest.Com


  After you run home and finish dishes Stevey, does she/he tie you up
and whip you then or does she whip you after you have both watched 
"Donahue" on tape? 

Just wondering....

Jon
From: dwelch@mpd.tandem.com (Dan Welch)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: The poor duchess
Date: 27 Aug 92 15:22:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: devnull.2321
Organization: Tandem Computers (MPD) Austin, TX

In article <1992Aug26.162424.645@cs.mcgill.ca> samurai@uriel.cs.mgill.ca writes:

>Because she's the Duchess of York.

Not any longer, she isn't.  They are officially divorced.

Daniel Welch
----
When Fergie tried to leave EuroDisney after complaints that she was
line-jumping, some people tried to restrain her, thinking she was one
of the new rides.

			-- heard on the BBC a few months ago
Newsgroups: soc.men,talk.rape
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Rape without a penis (Was: Men's Issues Newsbrie)
Followup-To: talk.rape
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1992Aug28.170748.18778@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com>
	<1992Aug31.155554.14514@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com>
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 03:44:10 GMT

<In article <1992Aug31.155554.14514@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
<In some post I write:
<>But what if he stuck his fingers up her vaginia?  My impression of
<>the way I think this 'penetration' law would work in practice is
<>that penetration would mean penetration of the vagina in practice, no matter
<>what the law actually said.
<   >

<   I was thinking about this some more, and I realized it needed to be
<   expanded some.  Penetration of the mouth or anus with a *penis*, rather
<   than a finger, would very likely fall into the 'practical' range of 
<   the 'penetration' definiton of rape (IMO).

<   Maybe this makes my concerns about the way this definition makes only
<   men rapists a bit more clear.

	Well, my understanding of New Mexico law is that any
	unwanted penetration is rape; I do not have the statues
	online, however.

	NM law was revised in the 1970's as a result of pressure
	by various people and a particularly terrible crime
	in which a pipe was used as a tool; rape could *not*
	be charged at that time because "rape" was defined
	as "penis in vagina".

	Yes, it is possible for a woman to rape a man in NM,
	in the opinion of at least one lawyer.

	(now I have to go wash my hands; typing the word "lawyer"
	 and all).

Xref: sparky soc.men:15459 soc.women:15741 alt.feminism:89
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.feminism
Subject: Feminists ignore Cosmetics?
Date: 25 Aug 92 14:36:22 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Aug24.112004.1@mdcbbs.com> rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:
<100 lines of lawyer-bashing deleted>
><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com  Middle-Aged Mutant Ninja Animator   |
>|                                                                        |
>| In the Middle East, women are raised to always cover their faces with  |
>| viels. Modern feminists point to this practice as proof of how these   |
>| women are oppressed. Yet here in the Western (so called) Civilized     |
>| countries, women are raised to cover their faces with cosmetics, to    |
>| the tune of 50 billion dollars a year. In this regard, American women  |
>| are just as oppressed as their eastern sisters while having to pay far |
>| more for the priviledge. Why do the feminists pay such scant attention |
>| to this most visible abuse of women's skin, health, and wallet?        |
><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Read some Naomi Wolf sometime.  Or just about any issue of Ms. magazine.
Sheesh.
-- 
             ......................................................
             ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | std disclaimers
             the university of chicago law skool, chicago, illinois
             it's log!  log!  log!  it's big, it's heavy, it's wood
Xref: sparky soc.men:15469 alt.child-support:2897 soc.women:15754
From: hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.child-support,soc.women
Subject: Avoiding Rape by Being Willing
Date: 25 Aug 92 23:52:56 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Washington

Woody Muller writes
>>Woody Muller writes
>>>EuStress, if you want to win, you've got to play the game.
>In reality, the system rewards those who know how to work the system,

   Suppose that what I wanted to "win" was
   to not pay child support.
 
   Now you give me the name and address of
   a man that has a judges signature on a
   (non adoption) order that frees him of 
   his support obligation.

   I can name one (depublished) case: "Joshsua M." Cal.Rtr.???
   (I don't have the case number with me).

   I've asked repeatedly if Bob K. or anyone
   else personally knew of any other case.
   
   "Playing the game" -- as you call it -- 
   is just avoiding rape by being willing.
From: jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.sex,sci.psychology,alt.polyamory,soc.couples
Subject: Re: Polyamory (was Re: Adults, Children and sex) (LONG)
Date: 26 Aug 92 19:51:48 GMT
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <BtKCDF.4L5@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
+
+   For the record, let it be realized that the concept of homosexuality
+being a mental problem or impairment was removed from the American 
+Psychology Association's authorized DSM-III documentation through
+political pressure, not through conclusive evidence. Whether I agree
+with this or not is not my point.

Well thank you for that concession. One could also ask how did
'homosexuality' get there in the first place. I will state that
being 'homosexual' will cause problems for people in this society
since the behavior is generally held to be 'bad or at best less than
good'. These terms are entirely defined by the culture, of which the
'political' is a part. Since the significance of the 'god' of
religion has lost much as the 'arbiter' of truth, it now falls on the
'political' to be that arbiter, hence the need to 'politize' issues.

Although many argue relative to a 'god stated' moral code, they now
look to the political process to enforce it. I.e. GOD no longer
seems to strike Sodom and Gamorah with the same distroying fire HE
once did. It seems now left to the temporal forces i.e. political, to
distroy anthing that doesn't match with the 'god's choosen ones'
thinking.
-- 

John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: rfs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (richard.f.j.soyack)
Subject: Re: Adults, Children and sex
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 12:40:20 GMT

In article <1992Aug29.044722.19479@cbnewsc.cb.att.com> chapin@cbnewsc.cb.att.com ( Tom Chapin ) writes:
>Richard Soyack writes:
>>I was responding to the echo of the NAMBLA party line that I
>>read in what you wrote.  They say, "Children want to have sex
>>with adults,"  and "children can say no if they don't."  I
>>didn't buy it from them and I don't from you.
>>
>>I asked Jeff this question, now I'll ask you.
>>
>>Do you view children as sex objects?
>
>No, I do not.  But when I was an child, I viewed adults as sex objects.
>
>I do not request that you "buy" sex or anything else from me, but I
>do request that you cease trying to deny my history.  I was there, 
>and you were not.  My desires to have sex with adults did exist and
>were frequent.  My few experiences where I was offered sex that I
>did not desire, I was always able to say no with no difficulty.
>
>I know nothing about NAMBLA nor their "party line" but I know my
>feelings as a child quite well.  And based on what I experienced
>as a child, you are coming across as someone who claims that
>2 + 2 = 5 because you heard Stalin and Hitler thought it was 4.
>
>
>-- 
>	     tom chapin                tjc@hrcce.att.com

Nice try, but again no sale.  I didn't say anything about
buying sex from you.  I talked about not buying what sounded
like the NAMBLA party line.

When I read what you just wrote I remembered a friend of mine
who, as a child, like to run across the very busy highway that
surrounded the town we lived in.  He was never injured doing
this, but I doubt whether he, as an adult, would recommend
that other children do this.  I would bet that he realizes
that he is very lucky that he was not horribly injured or
killed while engaging in this behaviour.

I would suggest that you are also coming across as someone who
denies the experiences of all of the children who were severly
damaged or killed by adults who were so sick that they prey on
children for sex.
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Women as Crazy as Men Behind Wheel (sorta long)
Date: 29 Aug 92 18:51:42 GMT
Organization: NMSU Computer Science

<In article <1992Aug28.114046.4185@linus.mitre.org> cgates@mitre.org (Curt Gates) writes:

<   Malfetti suspects several causes: Women are driving more, they re driving 
<   to and from places where alcohol is served, and women s roles have changed 
<   -- they re doing more things they used to depend on males to do...


	But they are still paying lower automobile insurance
	rates than men of the same age.......
Newsgroups: soc.men