HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Hating Men with Full Force
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:38:05 GMT

In article <1992Sep7.124459.26517@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> root@Turing.ORG (sinister) writes:
)In article <21922@galaxy.ucr.edu> starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu (aaron greenwood) writes:
)>In article <2316@unet.UUCP> linda@wendy.net.com (Linda Hill) writes:
)>>
)>Consider the quote from Jacsun Shah, a reporter from the Houston Chronicle
)>one more time.
)>
)>>->   "Yes, I am a man hater, yes, I am a feminist. and why not?
)>>->    Women are dying . They die every day, at the hands of men.
)>>->    Men ... beat them, rape them, dismember them. Hell yes, I
)>>->    hate men ... To all of you women out there, I say _hate_.
)>>->    You have every right to ... I knew the kindest thing I could
)>>->    do for the women of this world is to hate men with full force."
)>
)>The words that come to mind are terrorist and fanatic.  I think they fit
)>Ms. Shah's character very well indeed. And like a terroist she would like
)>to vilify, fragment, and distroy for no reason but an unhealthy emotion.
)
)The control, and channeling of 'negative' emotions is healthy. The denial
)of same can be life threatening.
)
)>Her statements are the product of a sever personallity disorder.  They
)>are without merit.
)
)They have extreme merit, they reflect the thoughts of many and are due
)your respectful consideration, if you are concerned with humanity...

It sounds like you are a proponent of the 'catharsis' theory of anger.
The idea behind this theory is that by expressing anger, one 'feels better'.
Research has not tended to support this point of view from what I've
read.  What tends to happen in many cases is that expressing anger in an
inappropriate manner (and this case clearly is IMO inappropriate) is simply
'working oneself up to a rage'. This tends to cause more anger and often
leads to violence, and does *not* have any catharitic effect, but rather
an amplifying effect.

Common experience also clearly shows (IMO) that extreme and irrational
expressions of anger and hatred at a particular group are conducive to
violence rather than mental health, IMO.  Consider 'I hate blacks, and
why not?"  "I hate Indians and why not?"  "I hate ------, and why not?"
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Remote (Taxpayer) Wallets
Date: 8 Sep 92 19:32:41 GMT
Organization: BT North America, San Jose CA.

In article <1992Sep7.195138.3944@desire.wright.edu>, sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
	[in regards to child support payments]

|> The money is not coming to the woman for her use, it's to help support
|> the child.   You seem to have ignored this in your post.

I am a CP. My ex has submerged. Were I able to to force here into court and 
actually receive child support, it would enhance the life of BOTH my son
and I.

I can't buy a better car with which to give him more mobility without helping 
my quality of life. I can't rent a better place for him without renting the 
same better place for me.

-- 
d'baba Duane M. Hentrich	baba@Tymnet.Com

We have yet to learn that the thing uttered in words is not therefore affirmed. It must affirm itself, or no forms of logic or of oath can give it evidence. 
The sentence must also contain its own apology for being spoken. - R.W.Emerson
From: kamchar@ibm.cl.msu.edu (SunCat)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: What is it that the men want?
Date: 4 Sep 92 19:48:18 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Michigan State University

To have a place of his own in the world apart from the control of those  
who would force him to be less than what he really is--even his wife.

(Pardon me for the serious answer)

And since I can't have that I'll have to settle for sex, drugs and loud  
stupid music.
=========SunCat++++     | kamchar@ibm.cl.msu.edu
"If every tool, when ordered, or even of its own accord, could do
 the work that befits it ... then there would be no need either of
 apprentices for the master workers or slaves for the lords."
 --Aristotle
_Scientific Quotations: The Harvest of a Quiet Eye_ A. L. MacKay
From: baba@samadhi.Tymnet.COM (Duane Hentrich)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Remote (Taxpayer) Wallets
Date: 9 Sep 92 19:37:16 GMT
Organization: BT North America (Tymnet)

In article <1992Sep9.130637.27486@walter.cray.com> jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood) writes:
>  "Quality of life" as defined by man haters, pussy whipped men and
>naive fairness goofs who think that quality of life is determined
>by the type of car they drive. I pray for you're son that you were
>only kidding.

Of all the sanctimonious sacks of shit I have read on this board you take
todays cake. You'll "pray for my son"? Ya know, last week I ended a date
before we even got to the restaurant because the woman in question decided
I need a lecture on how I should have dealt with a family crisis. The reason
it pissed me off so much was that she didn't even ask about the
circumstances. She assumed that her experience of child rearing was
the default and that what she said applied regardless of the truth of
the situation. I dropped her off. Good bye.

You can take your goddamned unkind assumptions and suck on them until
senescence sets in.

flame off

-- 
d'baba Duane M. Hentrich	baba@Tymnet.Com

We have yet to learn that the thing uttered in words is not therefore affirmed. It must affirm itself, or no forms of logic or of oath can give it evidence. 
The sentence must also contain its own apology for being spoken. - R.W.Emerson
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
From: charleen@ADS.COM (Charleen Bunjiovianna)
Subject: Re: K-Mark Hostages
Organization: The Original Estrogen-Crazed Lust Bunnies
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 23:25:48 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.224641.14189@u.washington.edu> hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress) writes:
>
>  If women didn't treat men like walking cash machines
>  then these violent acts would happen less often.

You know, I tried that, but I could never figure out whether
the card goes in with the magnetic stripe up or down.

Charleen
attitudinally challenged

--
Minnesota:  Where the elite meet sleet.
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: horwath@rtsg.mot.com (George Horwath)
Subject: New TV season
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 16:31:56 GMT

The latest issue of TV Guide has a preview of the new fall TV season. Included
in this is a listing of the various movies coming to TV for the first
time. The movies are organized according to category (e.g. Action/Adventure,
Mystery/Suspense, etc.). An interesting category is "Women & Children in
Jeopardy". Needless to say, the movies therein are NOT of the "knight
saves damsel in distress" type; they are of a more PC point of view, if 
you know what I mean.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well-informed people know it is impossible    |    Motorola
 to transmit the voice over wires.  Even if   | I speak for myself,
 it were, it would be of no practical value." |   not my employer
                         -- Boston Post, 1865 | horwath@rtsg.mot.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Biological Sex Differences? ("Women only" excusable ?)
From: <RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Monday, 14 Sep 1992 20:05:46 EDT
 <1617@idacrd.UUCP><1992Sep11.021145.15152@unixg.ubc.ca> <92254.223600RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET><10730@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

-From: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
-
-In article <92254.223600RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET> RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET writes:
->According to the article, this syndrome is seven times as frequent in boys
->as in girls.  This seems to be a decisive argument.  Certainly no parent
->wants his/her child to have this syndrome.  It seems also hard to see how
->culture can encourage it.  How is there such a huge difference?
-
-Autistic savantry only affects a tiny percentage of the population.  Seven
-times a very tiny number is still a very tiny number.  It is, to say the least,
-a bit of a stretch to conclude that this means anything in particular about
-the population at large.
-
--EMP

I think you missed the point which was that there seems to be differences
which are not easy to explain `culturally'.  In any case, the number of
idiot savants exceeds the number of nobel prize winners, so `small'
is all relative.  Certainly, there is not going to be tha much difference
among ordinary people, but the difference increases as you move away from
the mean.

Rohit Parikh
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Impact of the absent father
Date: 9 Sep 92 14:54:09 GMT
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: Murasami Labs

Michal Leah Peri wrote:
 
> Condoms *do* fail.  That is why men need to stop and check them before
> they ejaculate.  If the condom is broken, change it, then continue with ...

Someone set me right on this, but isn't it more likely for a condom to
fail *at* ejaculation than before, if it *is* going to fail?

K'Char
From: starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu (starbuck)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Unisex bathrooms
Date: 8 Sep 92 15:20:08 GMT
Organization: University of California, Riverside

In article steve@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au (Steve Balogh (+61 3 565 4747)) writes:
-In article (marc.colten) writes:
->
-> So why one MEN and one WOMEN?  Why not two bathrooms and you do your stuff?

-Perhaps women don't like sitting on seats that inconsiderate men have urinated
-on. Perhaps they are scared of getting pregnant from the toilet seat. ;-)
->NONE!  But there were 12 guys all hopping on one foot outside the MEN door.

-What was wrong with using the nearby tree. I remember (also many years ago)
- when a busload of guys had to do their thing and so the bus pulled over onto
- the side of the road, we all got out and lined up with our backs to the
- highway, and then did our thing. Thinking about it now, the site of 20 guys 
- lined up doing their thing does seem a little funny. :-)
- I am not sure what this has to do with feminism. Sorry.

A year or so ago our lab when to a conference in Carmel Ca.  All of the men
with the exception of the "boss" and one of the women drove up in a rented
van from Riverside.  The other women from the lab choose to drive up in
their own cars or fly.  Interesting in itself because we had lined up two
large vans for the trip.  Please note that the vans were to be shared
between all members of the lab and not one for women and one for men.

On the way back we decided to go home via the coast highway and through L.A.
Along coast in Big Sur we made frequent stops to admire the vistas.  At one
such stop The women who choose to "ride with the guys" asked us to pose for
a group photo.  I suggested without thinking about it that we turn our backs
to the camera with our hands folded in front of us.  The result was a photo
of eight guys who look like they are "pissing in the wind over a cliff".

Now when I say I didn't think too much about this idea for the photo I mean
I didn't consider the fact that our associate was a women.  Perhaps because
she fit right in with the group.  Had that not been so I think the words
sexual harrasement would come to mind. 

The joke photo we made now on the wall above her desk.  I know she will
get a kick out of it her whole life.

Funny think is that if the other women in the lab had been along I don't 
think that photo would have ever been made.  I know it wouldn't.  There is
one individual who would have found it offensive and made a stink.  

There are fine lines and it takes knowing who you are with to be able to
know where they are drawn.  That is the trouble with the notion of sexual
harassment.  A statement or an action construed by a women as offensive
can ruin a carrer or promotion regardless of the motivation.  In our
case the motivation was fun and was so rightly accepted but in another
case would have been grounds for a law suit.  As the say in L.A. go figure.

starbuck
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
From: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Male bashing in other newsgroups
Date: 9 Sep 92 22:53:52 GMT
Reply-To: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Organization: Florida State University, but I don't speak for them

The people who really enjoy this stuff are more to be pitied than censured,
so much does it reveal about their vapidity and pettiness.

-EMP
Xref: sparky soc.men:16023 soc.women:16214 alt.child-support:3058
From: woody@wolves.uucp (Woody Muller)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: "family values"
Date: 5 Sep 92 23:18:34 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Wolves Den UNIX, Durham NC
X-Md4-Signature: 91b61320027eb3a68b914e05af54f51b

In <1992Sep1.135210.1@mdcbbs.com> rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:

>  [ a long hypothetical situation involving false abuse allegations]
>
>  I personally cannot condone non-payment, as it  does indeed hurt the
>children. But along with money, they need BOTH their parents in their
>lives in a fair balance.

I most certainly agree that kids need both parents.  Where we seem to
disagree is in the perception of courts as possessing "infinitewisdom"
or whatever you call it; courts are more like tools.  Compare Hoffmeyer's
successfully using the tool to free himself from the unjust charges,
with Eustress' cowardly flight from the fight.  Hoffmeyer advances
the cause for all us fathers, while Eustress will set no precedent
other than to make the judge harsher on the next man in his room.

I'd love to discuss this further, but I'm about to spend a week with
my son in Colorado.  If my ex ever tried to deny visitation, she knows
I'd whisk her right into court on contempt charges.

-- 
woody@wolves.durham.nc.us
"Nothing in human affairs is worth any great anxiety."  -Plato
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
From: jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood)
Subject: Re: K-Mark Hostages
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 11 Sep 92 16:16:45 CDT

In article <1992Sep11.192812.26406@news.nd.edu> slarsen@mozart.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:
>In article <1992Sep11.115634.6110@walter.cray.com> jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep10.224641.14189@u.washington.edu> hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress) writes:
>>>Janice Kendall writes
>>>>If men were more capable of dealing with their own emotions and were less
>>>>dependent emotionally on women - they also might not become 
>>>>obsessive/possessive and kill women who try to leave them.
>>>
>>>  If women didn't treat men like walking cash machines
>>>  then these violent acts would happen less often.
>>
>>
>>I agree, Mr EuStress. 
>>
>
>No, I do not agree.  No one is responsible for violence except 
>the person perpetrating the violence.  I don't care how evil 

I should have been more specific about which I agreed. Violence isn't
acceptable. I do believe that more violence will occurr in family
court proceedings because the current practice of family law renders
a father emotionally bankrupt and financially ruined. What she
gets is "right", (legal you say) what he gets he "deserves".


>some guy's ex-wife, mother, sister, children are, that man of 
>his own volition picked up that gun and committed a violent 
>act.  He is alone responsible for that act.  If the system is 
>evil, change the system.  If the ex-wife is criminal, punish 
>her.
>But there is no action on anyone's part that justifies 
>an individual terrorizing others in a store.
Absolutely. 
Men who lose their children and wallet do not think it is in their
children's best interest. Losing both in family court knowing
who have absolutely NO recourse but to swallow the medicine
doesn't sit well with some. Violence is unacceptable, but possibly
understandable. 
> 
>And, I do not appreciate the implication that women's behavior 
>can control a man's violence.  This is the same thing as saying 
>that a battered wife asked for or somehow deserved to be beaten.
I believe a lot of behaviors are controlling and can control
a women's violence. 
>
>And, I further do not appreciate the veiled threat that if 
>the system doesn't change I could be harmed due to some man's 
>"righteous" anger.  I shop at K-mart, often.

You will read about more and more men losing it. That doesn't mean
I condone it. It is a fact. 

>
>
>Sue Larsen
>slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu

Let me come over to your house and evict YOU. Take your kid(s) and
make you pay me 30% of your after tax income to me. Believe you me, 
I'd keep my gun loaded at night, knowing damn well you'd come
after me. Why? You can run to the coppers or run to a judge, 
they'll only laugh at ya. 
But p.c. sue, we'll move on and forget about it. Won't ya Sue.
From: pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Male bashing in other newsgroups
Date: 10 Sep 92 20:00:16 GMT
Organization: Trivializers R Us

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.

paul
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: yali@bnrca (Yawar Ali)
Subject: Re: Male bashing in other newsgroups
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 15:56:51 GMT



In article <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.
|>

You're missing the point: the item you posted is PRECISELY an example
of women 'turning around' towards men the same kind of sexist and
misogynistic characterizations that are so prevalent in society,
the media, and, yes, on soc.men. So it is not a "one way thing".
Your reaction seems to indicate that you don't find this very amusing.

Fine. Your arguments against this practice would have more credibility
if they denounced ALL forms of <substitute-your-favorite-group>-bashing,
not just put-down humor directed at men by women. 

<stuff deleted>
 
|> 
|> marc colten
|> 

-- 
Yawar Ali  				
Bell-Northern Research				EMail: yali@bnr.ca
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada	K1Y 4H7			(613-)763-7741
--------Standard Disclaimer: BNR is not responsible for my opinions--------
Xref: sparky soc.men:16395 soc.women:16565
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Cowardly Fathers Who Abandon Their Children
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com
Date: 14 Sep 92 09:19:35 GMT
Organization: Electronic Data Systems, Unigraphics Division, Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: ferrara

In article <1992Sep12.221343.27661@u.washington.edu>, hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress) writes:
> Donald Agarrat wrote:
>      "It turns my stomach to see how many fathers there 
>      are who stick the mother with the child(ren) and 
>      go live another life."
>      
> My ex divorced me to marry her lover.
> She made a false claim in order to get a restraining 
> order -- so I couldn't see the kids.  She doesn't
> want me to see the kids because I am a "heathen deadbeat".
> I could force my visitation on her using the law but
> then I would be just as belligerent as the government
> who forces me to work (slavery) and then forces the 
> money to go to my ex`s house (financial gang rape).
>      


  I have to agree here. The claims for father's abandonment, like the claims
for rape, abuse, and the one sided picture of domestic violence, are a product
of media spin far more than they are reality. Were this not so, women would
nothave to resort to using so many false sexual allegations to retain the
children; husbands would be glad to surrender them. The fact that women MUST
resort to such tactics demonstrates a clear tendancy for the greater majority
of men to want to stay close to their children in ways additional to the
financial.

  Close examination of the facts shows that women are just as capable of
abandoning their familes as are men. Indeed, the primary reason for the
original "Tender Years Doctrine" was to combat an epidemic of women
abandoning their families. The goal was to make retetion of the children
financialy attractive to women, thus keeing the men free to work in the newly
opened factories. That financial incentive is still in place, as is witnessed
by women who lie to retain children and child support, then prove to be
far less concerned with the children than with themselves (and again, David
Brenner's case is a good example).



<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero        rivero@dev8j.mdcbbs.com     "A Human's Human!"  |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|                       I CAME,  I SAW,  I DIVORCED                      |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Newsgroups: soc.men
From: charleen@ADS.COM (Charleen Bunjiovianna)
Subject: Re: Male bashing in other newsgroups
Organization: The Original Estrogen-Crazed Lust Bunnies
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 20:25:31 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.095920.1@mdcbbs.com> rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:
>In article <10669@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>, pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke) writes:
>> The people who really enjoy this stuff are more to be pitied than censured,
>> so much does it reveal about their vapidity and pettiness.
>
>  Maybe not censured, as that is a violation of first amendment protections.

Oh, for heaven's sake, Michael, he said "censured", not "censored".

I admire Eric's ability to pity the petty, but the plethora of poisonously
popular anti-man humor I see every day alarms me.

Charleen
"Will alliterate for food"
--
I'd like to see a nude opera, because when they hit those high notes, I bet you
can really see it in those genitals.
Xref: sparky soc.men:16391 soc.women:16561 alt.child-support:3178 alt.dads-rights:2265
From: slarsen@monet.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Date: 14 Sep 92 16:12:56 GMT
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame

In article <1992Sep11.233552.8746@u.washington.edu> hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress) writes:
>Susan Larsen wrote:
>     "There are practical reasons for a father to 
>     have knowledge of his children,  too.  
>     These children could make claims against the 
>     father's estate, for example."
>
>Does Sue think Dads should be made to be money slaves?

Pick on someone else, Mr. EuStress.  I'm too busy earning a 
living and supporting my child.

Sue Larsen
slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu
Newsgroups: soc.men