HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: bowling and child support
Date: 14 Sep 92 22:26:15 GMT
Reply-To: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <2488@tymix.Tymnet.COM> baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich) writes:
>Why was the support payment singled out as the culprit? 

	Well, if Bubba owes me $100.00 and I'm broke, I don't say "Gee,
I'm broke 'cause I didn't win the lottery" I say "I'm broke 'cause Bubba
said he'd pay me by Friday and it's already Sunday..."

>Why then didn't she say, "I can't go bowling because I don't make enough"?
>Add to what she did the fact that she is possibly telling her child that

	Duane, you're building strawmen and you know it.  In the same way
that it trivializes rape when she claims that "6 weeks ago he put his hand
on her leg and she didn't want him to, the rapist" it trivializes the
real problems with this system when you pull this kind of stuff.
									wr

Xref: sparky soc.men:16059 soc.women:16248 alt.child-support:3075
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: EuStress Has Trouble With Words
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 7 Sep 92 09:46:52 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <1992Sep7.001738.5101@smds.com>, rh@smds.com (Richard Harter) writes:
> In article <1992Sep6.104445.23280@wolves.uucp> woody@wolves.uucp (Woody Muller) writes:
> 
>>Eustress has apparently never gone to court to fight for his rights
>>to see his kids.  Therefore, the court hasn't had a chance to even
>>consider holding the mother in contempt.  You, of all people, should
>>appreciate the value of telling your side of the story, and not bending
>>over like Eustress and expecting the court to decide fairly based
>>on the opposition's evidence alone.
> 
> Actually, there is something fundamentally wrong with a system where
> officials [judges] with the full punitive power of the state behind
> them make binding decisions "for the good of parties involved" without
> making an independent determination of the facts.
> 

Mr. EuStress also claims he only makes $4000 a year.  Seems to me that either
he is lying about his income (where upon the IRS would be VERY interested in
him), or he is really just laying around doing nothing.  $4000 a year comes
down to $80 a week.  Working in Burger King or McD's, he'd make at least twice
that!

Sue

> -- 
> 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.
From: robert@informix.com (Robert Coleman)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Male bashing in other newsgroups
Date: 11 Sep 92 19:31:02 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts) writes:

>In <1992Sep10.135825.8009@cbfsb.cb.att.com> colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:

>>As the person who posted the list in the first place, let me
>>put it into perspective.

>>1)  It is a one way thing.  That is what bothers me.  I really feel
>>    that women make up lists of these things that men (all men 
>>    supposedly) are guilty of and we are supposed to enjoy a good
>>    laugh at our expense.  Well Try to turn it around and see how
>>    much jolly laughter the woman have when we complain.  I
>>    doubt that very much.

>The fact that some feminists are humourless is irrelevent.  I do not see a
>need to emulate this stereotypically feminst behaviour, as it is in no way
>admirable.

	I agree with this.  In fact, one of my major concerns is that the
men's movement doesn't replicate the absurd stuff of the feminist movement.
But...
but...
>>3)  It starts with harmless lists of stuff but doesn't stop there.
>>    SEveral people on this group have mentioned how Anna Quidlen of
>>    the New York Times manages to slip in a male bashing comment
>>    or two whether it is appropriate or not.  ...

>I don't believe IT (male bashing) starts with harmless lists of humour.
>Harmless humour is perfectly acceptable, the problem starts once this point
>has been past.

	I disagree with this.  Humor is among the most potent forms of
rhetoric, as it makes us "feel good", thereby making us receptive to the
message.  Sarcasm is one of the most effective and destructive tools on
earth.  There *is* no defense against humor, except more humor...and in
the current environment, the opposite humor is considered "evil" and has
thereby had it's teeth pulled.
	My Dad always told me that the John Birch Society was detoothed by
a single song by the Chad Mitchell Trio.  Historians give a lot of credit for
the fall of MacCarthy to Walt Kelly, who lampooned him in the comic strip
"Pogo".  Political cartoons are found amidst the editorials of newspapers, and
for some absurd reason, the fact that the VP can't spell "potato" becomes
front-page news.  Is it really "harmless" to the Bush administration that we
spend so much time laughing at Quayle?
	You emperil the whole movement if you ignore the power of that tool.
Mind you, if it *were* a two-way street, it would be OK...I'd be laughing too.
But in an environment where a similar but opposite list would be labelled 
"mysogynistic" and could actually get someone fired, this list is no longer 
something to be laughed at.

Robert C.
-- 
----------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: My company has not yet seen fit to
	    elect me as spokesperson. Hmmpf.
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Is sexual freedom a good thing? (Was Re: Right To Not Support)
Date: 7 Sep 92 12:25:14 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

>>>Legally, this "right" comes out

>>Leave all the lawyer like arguments at the door.  Let's talk about

In article <1992Sep7.090154.4364@panix.com> 
tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) writes:

>Ah, yes.  "Don't reason with me -- why do you like to argue so much?"

Using lawyer-like argument is not the same as reasoning.

>>justice, sexual freedom and rights.  Why are you scared of such talk?

>How shall we talk about them, then?  Would "Oh, I see.  I was just wasting my
>time with lawyer-like arguments!  You must be right, then! do it?

The point is that lawyers can justify almost everything (read sometimes
the arguments of the lawyers who represent those gang members who beat
the shit out of motorists in the L.A. riots).  Just give them a case and
they will find the loop hole in the law.

>Note that I think I may actually be on your side of the main issue here.  It's
>your style of debate that's got me steamed...

The injustice in the "choice for women, no choice for men" doesn't
get you steaming, but my "style of debate" does.  Amazing.

>This one's right next to "You, a _man_, can _never_ know the _suffering_, the
>_repression_, the _indignity_ of..." (In plain talk:  "You only have one X
>chromosome, so I needn't answer any of your points!") in my book.

No, it stands near "you feminists *know* how it feels to know that if
there is a birth control failure then your life is destroyed.  You
talked about it in a great length before 1974.  Why do you refuse
to apply the knowledge of this feeling when a man's life are
destroyed by a birth control failure?"

I don't say that they can't know, I say that they make
a real effort not to know.  

>Thor Lancelot Simon	 tls@panix.COM

Hillel                                               gazit@cs.duke.edu

"Text processing has made it possible to right-justify any idea, even
one which cannot be justified on any other grounds."
		-- J. Finnegan, USC.
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Male Bashers
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com
Date: 10 Sep 92 09:48:18 GMT
Organization: Electronic Data Systems, Unigraphics Division, Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: lorena

In article <1992Sep9.190508.4230@news.ysu.edu>, ad815@yfn.ysu.edu (John S. Kennedy) writes:
> 
> Down on my "home system", Tri-State Online, there is a "newsgroup" called
> "Dear Jeanie" that evolved in short order from the "advice area" to the
> "male/female dynamics" area and I think just about every male basher in the
> Greater Cincinnati area has left a message in that area at one time or
> another. 
> 
> It always leaves me wondering ... what could have possibly happened to some
> of these women to make them hate men so much? 

  Someone posted an article here (which was killed by the too-quick
purge routine before I could save it) to the effect that the lesbian
feminists bash men in order to create a "target rich" environment, i.e.
to compete for the same females.

  Not sure if it's entirely true, but it's an interesting idea.


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com  Middle-Aged Mutant Ninja Animator   |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|                    When 911 won't work,  .357 will!                    |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: chapin@cbnewsc.cb.att.com ( Tom Chapin )
Subject: Re: Adults, Children and sex
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 18:27:10 GMT

Dan O'Connell writes:
>It isn't just me. It is the society we live in. I didn't make
>child abuse laws, I didn't make statutory rape laws or laws
>against masturbating in public, or laws against incest. 

Yes you did, if you are of voting age.  If you did not directly
vote on the laws, you voted on those who did.

>					as members of that
>society we give our tacit agreement to those laws unless we
>speak out against them. That's how this thread started.

Some of us have been speaking out against them, have you?  You
("you" in this case meaning plural) seem to have been speaking out in
favor of them, as far as I can tell, except for the possible token of
lowering the age of consent by a couple years.  Have these laws
succeeded in eliminating--or even lowering the incidence of--abuses?
These laws have been on the books for many years.  Rape and abuse
should be long gone by now.  Perhaps we haven't been imprisoning
enough people?  We now imprison more people than any other
supposedly civilized nation on the face of the earth.  We even
imprison a higher percentage of our population that the former
Soviet Union or South Africa?  Has imprisoning huge numbers of
people succeeded?

>There is a difference of opinion on "consent". Several people
>have said that small children can give consent. I and most
>of the world (IMO) disagree with this.

But you haven't even been willing to answer any questions on what
constitutes consent.  You can't expect agreement of opinion without
discussing definitions.

Well, since you are out of here, maybe others will be willing to
discuss the isssue.

I believe that "consent" is only vaguely correlated with age, and no
law which tries to make the correlation explicit and mandatory can
hope to deal with the situation.  It exists only to let people
pretend they dealt with the problem of lack of consent, when they
really just swept it under the rug.  

Our laws themselves admit that age is not correlated with consent by
allowing children to become "emancipated" and be able to take
responsibility for making their own decisions, and on the other hand
when it tries a child "as an adult" when the child has committed an
especially terrible crime.  In both cases it admits it is wrong
tying the issue of age to the issue of consent.

I feel the issue of "consent" must be dealt with on its own terms,
by legally deciding what it means to consent to any act, and from
that definition deriving objective, measurable criteria to determine
whether someone is able to give consent.

We do not rely on age alone when we give drivers licenses, but have
come up with tests which objectively and measurably allow us to
decide whether a person is ready to handle that responsibility.  So
even though we still discriminate against those farm kids who can't
drive a little compact car when they are fifteen even though they
have been driving huge combines for years, at least we moved in the
right direction.

-- 
	     tom chapin                tjc@hrcce.att.com
From: robert@informix.com (Robert Coleman)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Male bashing in other newsgroups
Date: 11 Sep 92 19:55:07 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich) writes:

>In article <4320038@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com> kurts@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Kurt Strain) writes:
>>In soc.men, colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:
>>
>>>   SEMINARS FOR MEN:
>[etc]
>>
>>I saw this passed around at work.  If it were done in reverse and were a
>>woman bashing joke it would have been serious sexual harassment.  As it is,
>>it's just good politically-correct affirmative action humor.

>This reminds me of an interview I did not long ago in an all-male
>department of a large company. Tacked to the wall above the table
>we were all sitting at was a small sign: "Sexual Harassment in this
>area will not be reported. It will, however, be graded."

>No lawsuit yet.

	Wait until the group is no longer all-male.  Then see if it's still
hanging around with no lawsuit pending.

Robert C.
-- 
----------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: My company has not yet seen fit to
	    elect me as spokesperson. Hmmpf.
Xref: sparky soc.men:16075 soc.women:16259 alt.child-support:3078
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: EuStress Has Trouble With Words
Date: 8 Sep 92 03:20:05 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: The Piranha Club

In article <1992Sep8.002652.15573@smds.com> rh@ishmael.UUCP 
(Richard Harter) writes:
>In article <1992Sep7.094652.3937@desire.wright.edu> 
>sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:

>someone yells foul, one has to look at particulars.  My point was that
>a system where rulings are made without ascertaining the situation is
>unjust, even if it produces a fair result by chance.

What make think that a spoiled girl like Sue will ever
give a damn about that?
Xref: sparky soc.men:16237 alt.sex:28884
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Birth control failures
Date: 10 Sep 92 17:57:29 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

In article <1992Sep10.132353.10614@bcrka451.bnr.ca> 
bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca (Brad Booth) writes:

>I've heard that condoms using a spermicidal lubricant are about 99%
>effective.  Also, that the spermicidal lubricant helps to reduce the
>risk of STD's.  My wife and I have been using these types of condoms
>for over a year (my wife can't use the pill), and so far we've had
>no accidents. ;)  (touch wood)

I quote from Consumer Reports:
#A contraceptive's failure rate is calculated as the percentage of
#women who have an unwanted pregnancy while using the method over
#one year's time.  For condom users, failure rates have ranged from
#roughly 5 to 15 percent.
#....................................................................
#Motivation may also play a role.  Married women who rely on condoms
#because they don't want a child under any circumstances have fewer 
#failures than married women who turn to condoms to delay an otherwise
#wanted pregnancy.  Researchers say that strong motivation to use condoms 
#properly could theoretically cut failure rates to 1 or 2 percent.

Anyway, all of that *assumes* that the condoms are of top quality,
an assumption which is not always true.  From CR:
#The two condoms in the worst group - LifeStyles Extra Strength with
#Nonoxynol-9 (a spermicide) and LifeStyles Nude Plus - flunked [the
#airbrust test], with more than 10 percent projected failures.  In
#some lots, up to half the tested samples failed.

>    __o     Brad Booth              | "I want you

Hillel                                             gazit@cs.duke.edu

It's not the break in the condom, it's the man's own stupidity.  If he's
so worried, let him get a vasectomy.  If he's willing to take the risk
of condoms, read CR to find out which ones are less likely to break.
Why should a woman have to go through one of two dangerous procedures
(abortion and pregnancy) because of a *man's* lie or a "break in condom"?  
                                         --  Muffy Barkocy
From: dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re:  Impact of the absent father
Date: 10 Sep 92 15:25:14 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Sep9.183919.22136@colorado.edu>, fedrick@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Kelvin W. Fedrick) writes:
> In article <716059279@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
> >
> >2) Women have several very safe (99%) birth control methods, such
> >   as the Pill, Norplant and the diaphragm.  Still, quite a few 
> >   people (I included) are pro-choice for women even if she has 
> >   never used birth control and she had 15 abortions before.
> 
>     Ah, last I heard, the diaphragm was statistically much worse than
>     condom, around 75% or something.

So what?  Does that really alter his point in any fundamental way?

> -kelvin

-- 

Dan S.
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: mikegal@microsoft.com (Michael Galos)
Subject: Re: Male bashing in other newsgroups
Date: 14 Sep 92 08:31:59 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation


>...  Political cartoons are found amidst the editorials of newspapers, and
>for some absurd reason, the fact that the VP can't spell "potato" becomes
>front-page news.  Is it really "harmless" to the Bush administration that we
>spend so much time laughing at Quayle?

One of the main purposes of the Vice-President in recent history has been
to act the buffoon and draw attention away from issues the President would
like ignored.  Nixon had Agnew. Bush has Quayle. Ford did his own comedy
by falling down. Carter used Billy for the same purpose. Believe me,
if the circus is good enough, you don't notice the lack of bread as much.

-- 
==============================================================================
Declare Sub Disclaim Lib "Standards" Alias "__StandardDisclaimer" (x As Any)
==============================================================================
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: fedrick@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Kelvin W. Fedrick)
Subject: Re:  Impact of the absent father
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 02:45:20 GMT

In article <6287@transfer.stratus.com> dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber) writes:
>In article <1992Sep9.183919.22136@colorado.edu>, fedrick@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Kelvin W. Fedrick) writes:
>> In article <716059279@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>> >
>> >2) Women have several very safe (99%) birth control methods, such
>> >   as the Pill, Norplant and the diaphragm.  Still, quite a few 
>> >   people (I included) are pro-choice for women even if she has 
>> >   never used birth control and she had 15 abortions before.
>> 
>>     Ah, last I heard, the diaphragm was statistically much worse than
>>     condom, around 75% or something.
>
>So what?

  The *what* is that I saw an error and thought it would be nice to
  correct it. Remember, the purpose of these newgroups is exchange
  of information. Do you have a problem with that?

> Does that really alter his point in any fundamental way?

  Did I say anywhere that it did? Did I challange this posting in any
  way other than simply attempting to make a minor correction?

  Boy I get tired of knee-jerk reactions.

-kelvin
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: What is Wrong with this picture?????
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 05:17:39 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.163008.11590@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
>In article <1992Sep6.101010.7218@morrow.stanford.edu> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>)And guess who wrote this:
>)
>)"I also think a male-only draft is profoundly anti-male.  Every man
>)drafted would have a 50 percent chance of not being (drafted) if women
>)were.  The male-only draft discriminates against men."
>)
>
>I give up.  Who wrote it and where did they write it?

Catharine A. MacKinnon in _Feminism Unmodified_.

Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
X-To: PETER NYIKOS
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 03:14:00 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes...
PN> Hello! this is the first time I have posted to this group.  For the last
PN> month I have been posting to talk.abortion where I first got to "know"
PN> and admire Will Steeves.  I do get the impression that he and I disagree
PN> on a lot of things, but he is exactly the sort of person I am glad is
PN> involved in the abortion issue.

Thanks!  (Blush)


PN> In <1992Aug23.155236.18769@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.o
PN> writes:

PN> >TW> for more research into other forms of men's contraceptives (I know, I
PN> >TW> hate condoms, too)!  But don't go sleeping around and then blaming
PN> >TW> us females for "accidents" in which you're at least 50% responsible!!!

PN> >Ah, so if you are saying that men are "at least 50% responsible," then you
PN> >SEEM to be saying that men SHOULD be forced to support the children, whethe
PN> >they want to or not.

PN> >But since women are ALSO "50% responsible," are you *also* advocating that
PN> >women be forced to bear the child, or *only* that men should be responsible
PN> >if the women *chooses* to have the child?

PN> I tuned into this late, so forgive me if I am going over old ground, but
PN> where is the parallel between "support" and "bear"?  Seems the second
PN> paragraph should be talking about "keep" as opposed to "put up for
PN> adoption."

PN> As long as the USA (and Canada, too, I suppose) are full of people
PN> desperately wanting to adopt, the requirement that men support their
PN> children is thereby weakened, since if the woman decides to keep the
PN> child, she is exercising an option that she is not forced into.

PN> I'm not happy about the above line of reasoning because I have a visceral
PN> dislike of deadbeat dads, but... well, what do you think, Will?


Ah, but would you consider women who have had abortions to be "deadbeat moms"?

To explain this philosophical and highly rhetorical question for now, I would
say that I too, dislike deadbeat *parents* of any gender, although at the
same time, I would say that men who discover that their girlfriend or wife is
pregnant, and who decide that they do not wish to be a parent, are no more
"deadbeats" than women who make the same decision.

(This is why I asked the above question...)

The issue of whether the child is born, is IMHO, irrelevant, because (in
Canada at least), the woman is totally able to dispose of the child, and if
the man decides during pregnancy that he does not wish to be a parent, he
should be no more forced into parenthood, than she should, and should she
decide that she cannot support alone, she is not forced into bearing the
child.  In other words, *this* is the "link" between "support" and "bear,"
ie., she is not forced to *bear*, but he *is* forced to support.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * If it has feelings, it's not cooked enough!