HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: baba@Tymnet.COM (Duane Hentrich)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: A neat story, and a question.
Date: 14 Apr 92 18:58:34 GMT
Reply-To: baba@Tymnet.COM (Duane Hentrich)
Organization: BT Tymnet Inc., San Jose CA

In article <12394@tamsun.tamu.edu>, (Charles Herrick) writes:
|> In many places, you can be charged with sexual harrassment if you put  
|> a calender on the wall of your personal office that has a picture of  
|> a female in a bikini leaning against a '57 Chevy.

This may be so. While I was in the manufacturing floor of a computer company
I got around the exclusions by displaying a portrait of an orchid in full
bloom. Naked Genitalia. 

Let them find a way to make me take it down. Even after I make clear just
what it is and means.

|> Fight misandry effectively. Fight it in the halls of government. Only  
|> when men have their own lobbying groups will this start to turn  
|> around.

"There is no po li ti cal so lu tion." - Police

I see no great difference between, 'My fast talker can out-proselytize your
fast talker!' and 'My lawyer can beat up your lawyer." The adversarial trip
is not the way toward a better quality of life.

-- 
d'baba Duane M. Hentrich	...!hplabs!oliveb!tymix!baba
                                         baba@Tymnet.Com
Warning: Expicit Thoughts
From: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: You want to win(Men's rights and Women's rights).
Date: 16 Apr 92 21:34:42 GMT
Reply-To: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Distribution: na
Organization: Florida State University, but I don't speak for them

In article <92105.132915JLB155@psuvm.psu.edu> JLB155@psuvm.psu.edu (Jennifer Brown) writes:
>Not necessarily.  If there's a father listed on the birth
>certificate, and he knows he has a child, he can fight to
>become the custodial parent and can also sue the mother for
>child support monies.

This is true, but it's very, very recent.  There was a groundbreaking case
only in the past couple of months where a father sued for and won custody
of a child that the mother wanted to adopt.  I can't recall the details, but
I can look through my files.

It is also worth remembering that the average child support from women to men
is between one and two orders of magnitude smaller than the average from men
to women and is usually little more than a token amount.

-EMP
Xref: sparky soc.men:8379 soc.women:8919
From: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: pro-choice == pro-(womens' only) choice?
Date: 13 Apr 92 23:32:02 GMT
Reply-To: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: Florida State University, but I don't speak for them

In article <92099.162254JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu> JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu (Joy Haftel) writes:
>2) "He should have some say as to whether the genetic material becomes
>   human."  Isn't it a bit late for that kind of decision?  Unless the
>   man has been raped, it's not as if he didn't eject the genetic
>   material in a place where it could act on its own accord (fertilize
>   the egg).

One more time.  It it's "a bit late" for his decision, then by the exact same
logic one must come to the conclusion that it's "a bit late" for her decision.
This acting "on it's own accord" is exactly the same as the "potential life"
stuff that we keep hearing about from the Baptist section of town.  So, let's 
make abortion illegal everywhere so that everything is fair.  Problem solved.
Let's go home.

-EMP
From: cnh5730@maraba.tamu.edu (Charles Herrick)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Maternity leave
Date: 13 Apr 92 19:23:11 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.174004.19754@aero.org> nadel@aero.org (M.H.  
Nadel) writes:
$ The Wall Street Journal recently reported on a study which showed  
that
$ the cost of maternity leave is significantly less than the cost of  
hiring
$ and training replacement workers.


Even less expensive is hiring people who are committed to their  
career enough to guarantee their employer that they prefer to work  
and have no plans to get pregnant .... or men.
From: stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: pro-choice == pro-(womens' only) choice?
Date: 9 Apr 92 11:46:08 GMT
Distribution: na

Beverly Huntsberger writes

+ 	legal rights. If you got the laws you want about
+ 	men's equity in family court, AND you've tied

The laws of and by themselves are *quite* genderblind. The courts,
and the officers of the courts, that is another matter. They are
anything *but* biased.

Now, how do we go about changing that?

K'Char
Xref: sparky soc.men:8070 soc.women:8638 talk.abortion:13914
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: pro-choice == pro-(womens' only) choice?
Date: 5 Apr 92 01:08:07 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: The Piranha Club

In article <1992Apr3.201740.8708@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu> bev@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu (Beverly Huntsberger) writes:

>	Maybe you could answer a couple questions for
>	me. If one aspect for the woman is whether
>	she wants a fetus to be in her body, then
>	what is the analogous choice for the potential
>	father?

The point is that an unwanted pregnancy can destroy a man's life.

E.g. if the man realized that the condom was broken and he tells
the woman "if there will be a baby then I don't want any rights
and responsibilities toward it," and there is a pregnancy then
she can collect 25% of his income for the next 18 years.

I'm for choice for men and choice for women, as part of the same package.
She should have the right for abortion regardless of his opinion, he
should have the right to say, in the early stages of the pregnancy, "I
don't want any rights and responsibilities toward the future child."

People like Beverly argue against that because they don't give
a damn about men.  They're pretty sure that men's responsibilities
should start five minutes *before* conception happened.

>	I happen to think it is important to examine
>	both the personal and political aspects to these
>	questions and how they do or don't overlap.

Here is my examination:

Traditionalists argue against abortion and claim that there is
equality because men can't abort.  Quite a few feminists argue for
"choice for women, no choice for men" in the name of "equality".

Methinks that both groups stink because both of them don't give a
damn about the way that an unwanted pregnancy can *destroy* lives.

The difference is that the traditionalists prefer to destroy
everybody's lives because they believe that "life start at
conception" while the "no choice for men" feminists prefer to
destroy only men's lives because they believe in "men's
responsibilities start five minutes before conception."

Sometimes I wonder which group stinks more...

>	Bev	bev@grover.csd.scarolina.edu

Hillel                                            gazit@cs.duke.edu

"When I do it to you it's sexism,
when you do it to me it's feminism."
Xref: sparky soc.men:8447 soc.women:8963
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Japanese Women's Lib
Date: 16 Apr 92 00:07:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.xgzj20m.sheaffer
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Apr14.230703.20741@maths.tcd.ie> creilly@maths.tcd.ie (Colman Reilly) writes:
>
>"Undeniable fact of biology"? I don't think so. What the above means that
>males that have developed within the social framework that exists are on
>average more agressive than females.
>
>Males are expected to be more agressive than females.

This has been documented as a "fact of biology" for at least twenty
years. The best proofs of this is in the research of Dr. John Money
of the Johns Hopkins Medical School. Females that were accidentally
exposed to overdoses of male hormones _in utero_ display much greater
agressive behavior, rough play, and increased emphasis on career
pursuits vs. home life. This has been published in several books
under his name, and numerous scientific papers. The role of male
and female hormones simply CANNOT be 'wished away' as contrary to
egalitarian dogma. Hell, for centuries it's been known that farm
animals that are castrated become feminized in their behavior. Yet
people still argue that sex hormones have NO influence on behavior!

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

     "In the 1970's the world will undergo famines - hundreds of millions
     of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs 
     embarked upon now ... in 1985, when it is calculated [under the most
     optimistic scenario] that the major die-back will be over, ..."
       
                       Dr. Paul Ehrlich, "The Population Bomb," 1968
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion
From: baba@Tymnet.COM (Duane Hentrich)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: RFD: Nonprofit Corp. to Aid Japanese Feminism
Date: 15 Apr 92 23:36:31 GMT
Reply-To: baba@Tymnet.COM (Duane Hentrich)
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: BT Tymnet Inc., San Jose CA

In article <97kaJB1w164w@netlink.cts.com>, jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
|> hit on something that American males and American feminists can
...
|> American males want to debilitate Japanese businessmen who are
...
|> American females want to help liberate their oppressed sisters in
...
|> Japan.  It seems like a marriage made in heaven!  The only question
|> is, "Is it too good to be true?"

Actually that question is too facetious even for me. What I'd like to know is
Why do you use male/female instead of man/woman?

-- 
d'baba Duane M. Hentrich	...!hplabs!oliveb!tymix!baba
                                         baba@Tymnet.Com
Warning: Expicit Thoughts
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct
From: rna@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft)
Subject: Re: Men Are Not Cost Effective
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 02:36:02 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.210233.2612@apollo.hp.com> cloyd_j@apollo.hp.com (John Cloyd) writes:
>I guess if the problem of too many people in the prisons is mainly
>a male problem, and the cost should be borne by males, then those
>same males should be allowed to ease the burden through such options
>as capital punishment right ? Somehow I don't think the author would
>agree to allow such a decision to be made only by men, do you ? 
>
>                                                      jc

Of course women are at least 50% responsible for those men who are in
prison (most of them, at least, chose to have that baby, too bad it
turned out male).

Cheers,
RNA
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Divide and Conquer (Was Re: Is this a case of sex discrimination?)
Date: 6 Apr 92 20:48:44 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

#Male offenders, who are supervised by the county Probation Department,
#must serve at least half their sentences before becoming eligible for
#home surveillance unless otherwise ordered by a judge.  Women are
#under no such policy.

In article <1992Apr6.173803.9526@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu> bev@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu (Beverly Huntsberger) writes:

>	A lot of people get confused in the heat of
>	discussion and forget these basic tenets.
>	I'm sorry I "all-capped" at you. One thing
>	those few rich, greedy, fat cats have to do
>	to stay in power is to pit everyone else
>	AGAINST each other. Then they disguise it
>	whatever they think they can sell with catchy
>	titles like anti-"reverse discrimination",
>	"pro-life", "lower taxes", "war on drugs", etc.

That's one tactic, but the basic strategy is Divide and Conquer.

E.g. in the late 60's the fat cats almost lost power because so many young
men were fed up with the draft and they were demonstrating in the streets.
Several movements, feminism included, benefited from that, and there was
some cooperation.

In the early 70's the fat cats put the feminists on the top on the mountain,
showed them the extra rights and offered them affirmative action.  At the
same time there was a break between feminism and the anti-war movement, and
I suspect that these two events are strongly related - feminists believed
(rightly or wrongly) that they did not need the young men's help anymore.

The question now is what an ally that can be "bought out"
so cheaply is really worth.  (This is not a rhetoric question.)

>	People like David Duke and Jesse Helms and

A very liberal Supreme Court decided in the late 70's that
different promotion criteria according to race and sex are
perfectly fine; that was a sin, David Duke is the punishment.

>	It is exactly what those dudes at the top want.
>	Which is why they have always tried to convince
>	YOU that you are one of them. 

So far, they have never told it to me.  The ones who put me in the
same basket with the Old Boys are the affirmative action supporters.

>       Don't believe it.  As yet, I don't.

That's nice (no sarcasm), but what kind of deal do you suggest?

Which issues are so important to you that you will not give up on
them (e.g if I were a woman then I'll put pro-choice quite high
in my priority list), and which are open to negotiations?

>Bev

Hillel                                         gazit@cs.duke.edu

"...his great illusion that you can use wealth or power to buy back the
life you mis-spent trying to acquired them; it's the American dream."
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct
From: nathan engle <nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Men Are Not Cost Effective
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 15:37:46 -0500

In article <1992Apr7.200503.9860@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@umbc4.umbc.edu 
(Alex S. Crain) writes:
>In article <4593@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil> rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil 
>(Josh Rovero) writes:
>>Her
>>solution is classically liberal -- don't insist on personal responsibility
>>for criminals, and try to punish some group you perceive has an advantage.
>>Wonder if she considers herself a feminist?
>
>	I thought that the artical was classically conservative - try and
>show how a certain section of society is defined by the criminal class,
>and attempt to punish that section based on that relationship. I wonder if
>she considers herself pro-family?

    Strange, I thought that the article was classically extremist - 
first outline a problem in simplistic terms, and then use statistics to
try and blame all instances of the problem on some unrelated and probably
innocent third party. I wonder if she's in favor of a negotiated compromise
about who should pay in light of the fact that she benefits from locking
up these dangerous criminals just as much as the rest of us.

-- 
Nathan Engle             Software Juggler
Indiana University       Dept of Psychology
nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Xref: sparky soc.men:8516 soc.women:9026
From: radzy@cogsci.Berkeley.EDU (Tim Omelan Radzykewycz)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: A Woman's Right to Choose
Date: 16 Apr 1992 01:57:04 GMT
Organization: Institute of Cognitive Studies, U.C. Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: cogsci.berkeley.edu

In article <RBcaJB1w164w@netlink.cts.com> jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
> This leads to a few key questions:
 
> How do people feel about making the choice of biological father
> legally the woman's choice without the knowledge or consent of
> the husband?

It sucks!  Big time!  A marriage should be open enough for
that kind of thing to be discussed.  If it isn't open enough
for discussion and if the issue is important, then there is
something very unhealthy in the marriage.

> How do people feel about openly instituting polygyny as a recognized form
> of marriage?

That would be great!  I've long held the belief that monogamy was
ill-conceived.

> Is cuckoldery (covert polygyny) a critical component of a progressive 
> civilization?

No.  The covertness implies that the civilization is repressive.  I
find it hard to believe a repressive "civilization" is a good one.
(Note: it may be better than any other contemporary one: lesser of
evils and all that.  Other note: cuckoldery may be the best option
for some people, in societies where polygyny is illegal.)

Blessings:  May you have the opportunity for the marriage that
makes you and your partner(s) happy!

------------------------------------------------------------
					|  An it harm none,
	-- radzy			|  do as ye will.
					|
	Tim Omelan Radzykewycz     	|  "Just pray for a
	The Incredible Radical Cabbage	|  tough hide and a
					|  tender heart."
	radzy@cogsci.berkeley.edu	|    -- Ruth Graham
					|
------------------------------------------------------------
> Hi! I am a .signature virus. Copy me into your .signature to join in!
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 23:31:27 -0400 
From: Alison Rebecca Colman <ac10+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Loser, Loser, who's the loser (was: You want to win(Men's rights and Women's rights).
	<12489@tamsun.tamu.edu>

> Charles Herrick spews:

>Sounds like your girlfriend is the loser. After all she
>1) decided to involve herself with a loser
>2) hopped into bed (or was it the backseat of a car) with the loser
>3) didn't take responsibility for birth control
>4) got pregnant by the loser
>5) and carried the loser's child to full term
> 
>Now she's paying for her poor judgement.
> 
>Don't ask me to feel sorry for her, when she's the one who's the  
>loser.

Will someone please translate the above statement for me? I don't speak
asshole. thanks.


Big Al
From: williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: SNUFF FILMS sighted in TIME MAGAZINE!!! (Dworkin and MacKinnon, too)
Date: 16 Apr 92 13:45:09 GMT
Reply-To: williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com (Dances with Drums)
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: athena

In article <STEINAR.92Apr14194103@otello.solan.unit.no> steinar@otello.solan.unit.no (Cindy Kandolf) writes:
>There is, i think, an obvious difference between soft-core porn, in which
>all parties involved are (or for the sake of the picture pretending to be)
>enjoying themselves, and hard-core porn, where violence is involved and
>not all involved are (seem to be) enjoying themselves.
>
>Films in which one person appears to be murdered are pretty clearly in
>the second category.  We're in agreement so far, i hope?
>-Cindy Kandolf
> cindy@solan.unit.no
> Trondheim, Norway
---
	Sorry, Cindy, but disagreement here -- with definitions of
hard vs. soft porn.  Here in the US, hard porn is considered anything
that is showing actually penetration/sex (among other things).  It can
be pure erotica -- no violence and get the label of hard core porn.  

	Violence, is *not* pornography -- at least not for a majority
of those who might watch X and XXX movies -- because it is not
erotica.  The word pornography is misused to refer to a broad
class of films that really aren't.



--
***  Dances with Drums  ***
***    DoD #0492   Steed: Kawasaki '80 750LTD                             ***
:: If pro-choice means choice after conception, does this apply to men too? ::
From: cnh5730@maraba.tamu.edu (Charles Herrick)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Dworkin and MacKinnon Rule!
Date: 17 Apr 92 15:06:11 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.163541.19035@watserv1.waterloo.edu>  
lstewart@watserv1.waterloo.edu (L. Stewart -- IS      Office 1058)  
writes:
$ My sincere hope is that Dworkin and MacKinnon age prematurely
$ and fade into the moonset. They are simply the most vocal and
$ wrong-headed aspect of feminism. 

Dammit, L. (are you name-challenged or what?) that's exactly what  
people said about the Nazi party in Germany in the late 1930's!!! I  
mean exactly.

Tyrants do NOT fade into the moonset. They have to be slammed down  
every time they appear, because when they do succeed, it is by simply  
refusing to go away.

If you are serious about standing against tyranny, pull that  
perfume-soaked hanky away from your nose and stand up with the rest  
of us in demanding that people who claim that the femiNazi's don't  
speak for them begin to explicitly and repeatedly rebuke Dworkin and  
their ilk. 

Either that or be honest enough to admit that with their silence (or  
low volume), the great majority of so-called feminists implicitly  
support this resurgence of fascism in modern-day Western Culture.

Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct
From: em@nynexst.com (Edward Man)
Subject: Re: Men Are Not Cost Effective
Organization: Nynex Science and Technology
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 23:10:49 GMT

In article <4593@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil> rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero) writes:
>A better solution would be to have those who COMMIT crimes (male or female)
>pay the true costs of their crimes (to the victims) AND the true costs of
>their incarceration.

The REAL problem is that reverse discrimination is NOT treated as
a form of discrimination by the liberals. Get them to agree first.

>Each one of these criminals has something in commom, male or female.  
>They all had a mother, a mother with complete and total control over
>her own body.

Control, yes; but I don't know about complete. After all, a "possible"
child's life is involved. The child's got its right to life, too.

>The fact that these mothers are giving birth to criminals
>is obscene.  Ban motherhood NOW!     :-)
              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yes, N.O.W. does want to ban motherhood! 8-)

>
>I generally try to be a sensitive 90's kind of guy, but my gut reaction to
>the authors hypothesis and proposal is that she doesn't have a clue.  Her
>solution is classically liberal -- don't insist on personal responsibility
>for criminals, and try to punish some group you perceive has an advantage.
>Wonder if she considers herself a feminist?
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Do you?

------
Ed
Xref: sparky soc.men:8369 soc.women:8906 alt.flame:6689 alt.fan.q:405
From: cnh5730@maraba.tamu.edu (Charles Herrick)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Stifle, Edith!! (was: A neat story, and a question.
Date: 15 Apr 92 21:25:09 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.204950.28927@cs.wayne.edu>  
mrharri@jake.cc.wayne.edu (Marissa Harrison) writes:

$ In article <FXBL_3C@ais.org> chungkuo@ais.org (Shawn FitzGerald)  
writes:
$ >"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!!"

$ 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!!


What's wrong with his feeling and expressing his anger at being the  
target of an effort by some obvious feminist to use the current  
"sexual harrasment" hysteria to further their movement by using a  
"Politically Correct" club to muzzle others when the others happen to  
be discussing a subject with which the particular feminist happens to  
be uncomfortable?
Xref: sparky soc.men:8502 soc.women:9018
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: A Woman's Right to Choose
Date: 15 Apr 92 22:00:18 GMT
Organization: QQQCLC

In article <RBcaJB1w164w@netlink.cts.com> jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
>How do people feel about openly instituting polygyny as a recognized form
>of marriage?

	Huzzah!! (Polyandry too, of course)

>Is cuckoldery (covert polygyny) a critical component of a progressive 
>civilization?

	No, the "covert" makes it regressive.

						Kayembee
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,talk.politics.misc