HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Subject: Re: domestic  violence & the super bowl
Organization: Aston University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL241235]
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 21:20:07 GMT

Ed Matz (ematz@world.std.com) wrote:
: In article <1993Jan25.231201.21812@informix.com> mcole@sub-40 (Mary Cole) writes:
: >Announcements on domestic violence during the Super Bowl game.  The Super  
: >Bowl is one of the most widely viewed television events of the year; it is  
: >also the day, according to women's shelters, when calls for help increase  
: >by as much as 40%.
: 
: Domestic violence and other violence between intimates is a very
: serious problem that needs to be addressed seriously.   Yet the popular
: notion is that domestic violence means men beating women.   Yet,
: consistently, studies that do not rely on crime report statistics
: (that is, studies that sample a representative cross-section of the
: population) indicate that violence between intimates is as frequently
: women-on-men as it is men-on-women.   Studies also indicate that
: consistently domestic homicide is as often women killing men as it is
: men killing women.

A report of a study recently done, here, shows men more likely than women
to be injured in domestic violence than women. For the reason that women
are more likely to use a weapon and men are more likely to be unarmed.

: 
: Okay, calls for help to women's shelters increases 40% on Super Sunday.
: Any statistics on the effect on calls for help to men's shelters?

Mens shelters are rare here and likely to be ridiculed, as a concept.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Evans                                   |evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 429 9199  (Home)                    |evansmp@cs.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 359 6531 x4039 (Office)             |
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.dads-rights
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: adoption rules
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 14:24:38 GMT

peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>
>>Do not allow the child to be placed for an adoption until
>>suitable tests have been taken (eg. blood, DNA, etc) and
>>a registry of the kind Michal imagines already exists 
>>has been searched.  Enact a rebuttable presumption that if
>>the father is found, he shall have sole custody if he desires.
>
>This requires the existence of a registry with genetic
>information on all possible parents.  

No, it doesn't.  Assuming that privacy is assured -- and this is
a BIG assumption -- it would be up to the individual to decide,
at his own risk.  The option must be freely available and private
(yeah, right) to everyone.


>Would an individual 
>be able to opt out of providing her/her genetic record
>for the registry?

That was the intent.  Lack of a match would not be an excuse
for hiding the identity of the father, though -- which should
still be a criminal offense.

Perhaps we could be more Orwellian and require every child to
be genetically fingerprinted, so that unidentified fathers could
be identified, and men could (as you suggest) search at any time
to see if someone has birthed their child.  After all, hospitals
take footprints of babies.  Unfortunately, the mere existence of 
such databases is the first step toward their misuse.


Does anyone know whether the "Father Registry" in New York State
is public?  Is it computerized?

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: domestic  violence & the super bowl
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 16:24:39 GMT

bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
>In article <1993Jan25.231201.21812@informix.com> mcole@sub-40 (Mary Cole) writes:
>)Here's a message I received today. Please add your support to it and help  
>)others:
>)
>)
>)|>From POMONA.CLAREMONT.EDU!JRYCENGA Wed Jan 20 11:52:44 1993
>)|
>)|For political activists, or media watchdogs, or just concerned
>)|women, here's a quick something you can do to help prevent
>)|and stop domestic violence.
>
>Is an advertisement really going to stop all those women from hitting their
>husbands on Superbowl Sunday?
>
>Half a :-)

Is it really going to stop the tremendous proportion of abusive women 
from hitting their children?

Is any group of political activists or feminists going to?

Not even .0001% of a :-) from me.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
From: dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Are false accusations harmless? (WAS Re: Drunk Sex = Rape?
Date: 27 Jan 93 22:59:01 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: redondo.sw.stratus.com

In article <C1JAzF.BoC@hplntx.hpl.hp.com>, albert@hpl.hp.com (Joseph Albert) writes:
> In article <2524@newsserver.cs.uwindsor.ca> bouche2@server.uwindsor.ca (BOUCHER DAVID            ) writes:
> >
> >> [....]     i happen to believe that william kennedy
> >>smith was guilty of rape.
> >
> >WHY do you believe that?
> 

[much deletia]

So in other words, because some person X claims to have taken pictures
of Smith's accuser in a battered and bruised condition, but couldn't
prove it was actually her, you're convinced he is guilty.  Christ, I
hope I'm never on the receiving end of some phony rape charge some day
with you in the jury.  How your hearsay opinion is supposed to be any
better than the tabloids, I couldn't begin to imagine.  Tell me, Joseph.
How are these pictures any more credible than the ones the Weekly World
News published a while back showing Jack Kennedy walking on the beach on
his Carribean hideaway?

-- 

#include <std_disclaimer.h>

Dan S.
Xref: sparky soc.men:23083 soc.women:22948 soc.singles:37418
From: quirke_a@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Duck and Jive (was Re: Pre-Sex Contract)
Date: 22 Jan 93 12:36:17 NZST
Organization: Welligton City Council, Public Access.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: kosmos.wcc.govt.nz

gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:

: You will quickly find
: that there are really very few welfare queens (mothers with a
: lot of kids permanently on welfare).  You will also find that
: raising children is a lot of work.  Women with access to
: contraception and abortion almost never have large numbers of
: children; those who do are almost always in a patriarchal
: situation -- e.g. various fundamentalist religious types who
: believe that it's the Godly thing to do.  Such women receive
: strong support from their families and their communities. 

I recommend Germaine Greer's "Sex and Destiny" for reading up on
why women in industrialised countries may be having fewer children
(And the consequences of this). Quite thought provoking.
-- 
Tony Quirke, Wellington, New Zealand (Quirke_A@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz)
"Only the free have disposition to be truthful.
 Only the truthful have the interest to be just.
 Only the just possess the willpower to be free." - WH Auden.
Xref: sparky soc.men:23251 alt.feminism:7626
From: kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall)
Subject: Re: Male Men Bashers
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 01:44:06 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.004736.4145@cs.ucla.edu> gds@cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner) writes:

 [ old stuff deleted ]

>Right.  However, I think the media subtly encourages us to find a
>companion even if we might be otherwise happy without one.  The "not
>having a companion" can lead to dissatisfaction, especially if most of
>your honest, caring friends have companions.  (In other words, "what's
>wrong with me?")  I liked the reasons someone gave in a past post for
>why people don't form relationships, but I would add to them having no
>access to or no knowledge of available, compatible, potential partners.

 Many single-by-choice people will go with friends as "escorts" and
 alleviate some of the single hassles.

 I have a "fun" theory that the "playboys" of yesteryear, those guys who 
 had oodles of women dripping off of them, were actually gay men.   Women 
 had a fun, safe escort, and they had a cover for being a "confirmed bachelor".

>A good % of people I know would make a good partner for someone, but
>there isn't a compatible someone that they would meet in the general
>course of their everyday life.

 It's not always easy, but the answer would then be to step outside
 your everyday life and get involved in something new and interesting
 to you.

>
>--gregbo
   
 Janice Kendall    kendall@adobe.com    ...!{decwrl|sun}!adobe!kendall

		"Creativity overcomes violence."
				John Bradshaw on "Homecoming"
 

Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.dads-rights
From: rat@erg.sri.com (Ray Trent)
Subject: Re: adoption rules
Reply-To: rat@erg.sri.com (Ray Trent)
Organization: SRI International, Menlo Park, CA
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 00:48:56 GMT

In the referenced article, peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>>the *good* of protecting the father's right to stop an adoption is not
>>>worth the *bad* of subjecting the mother and child to the risk of 
>>Fine.  Will you legally permit a father to abduct a child and disappear
>Are you claiming that abducting a child is equivalent to a mother 
>declining to go out of her way to notify a former sex partner that 
>she has borne a child?

He claimed nothing of the sort. However, if your real conclusion was
that "the *bad* of subjecting the mother and child to abuse" justified
lack of notification (i.e. nullification of parental rights for the
father), then the same conclusion should force you to accept the
analogous abduction of a child from an abusive mother as being valid.

If you just think the woman should be able to say "go to hell" to the
man simply because she feels like it, why not say so? (hint: ...no,
on second thought, if you need a hint, no hint will suffice...)
-- 
"When you're down, it's a long way up
 When you're up, it's a long way down
 It's all the same thing
 And it's no new tale to tell"                      ../ray\..
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Privacy -- and responsibility
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 20:38:52 GMT

karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>In article <1jkhsiINNese@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>x73rl@ll.mit.edu ( Rick LaFave) writes:
>>
>>>Michal - sometimes you have no clue whatsoever.  If anything thats marriage 
>>>for HER - walk away, take the kids, take the house, take his income.  Men
>>>are by far the losers in divorce, not women.  Women, by holding the kids up 
>>>as a shield, are entitled to a post-divorce standard of living that is 
>>>equivalent to before divorce.
>>
>>Not so.  According to The Economist (Christmas issue, 1992) usually the 
>>woman's standard of living drops after divorce.  Often that of the man 
>>rises.
>
>So what?  The salient question is this:
>
>	Did her standard of living <rise> when she got married?  If so, then
>	she has <returned> to her former standard of living, and has not
>	been screwed in any way.
>
>	Does getting married imply that a woman is <entitled> to maintain
>	the married standard of living, even if the marriage ends?
>
>It is easy to leave off the other half of the equation if it doesn't suit 
>your needs.

Nah, everybody's missing the salient issues.

You see, 80% of divorces are initiated by women because
80% of divorces are a result of abuse by men, and these 
women would rather lower their standard of living than
continue letting their children be abused.  Yes.  Moreover, 
these men are not suddenly working more to support two households; 
rather, they have been freed to flee the love of their children
and mooch off male privilege by getting higher salaries from 
sexist corporations.  Indeed, studies have shown it is emphatically
in the best interests of children to have a man pay a woman to send 
a child to daycare than for a man to send a child to daycare.

Don            [need I disclaim?]
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Privacy -- and responsibility
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 18:24:50 GMT

In article <1jnl0tINNlam@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>
>>In article <1jhjorINN7hj@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>>
>>>>(3) restrict his sexual life to cunnilingus only.
>>>
>>>>I disagree most emphatically with your position.  IMO, (2) and (3)
>>>>are unreasonable and sexist burdens, and (1) is downright illegal.
>>>
>>>In some states (3) is illegal, too.
>>>
>>>I never stated (1),(2), or (3). You mis-inferred them from what I wrote.
>
>>Funny, I recall you suggested (3) as a way to prevent pregnancy.
>
>No I suggested cunnilingus as a way to prevent pregnancy.
>Perhaps if you think about it some more the difference between
>"cunnilingus" and "restrict to only cunnilingus" will become 
>clear to you.
 
You think that doing cunnilingus every other day will prevent pregnancy?
I suggest that to be usefull, this must necessarily be an all or nothing
deal. 
 
>>Rich
>>payner@netcom.com
>
>                                                --  Michal
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Impressive amounts of material can be accreted in this manner.


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
From: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Subject: Re: Gender Discrimination
Originator: hillyard@tiger.msc.cornell.edu
Reply-To: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell-Materials-Science-Center
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 06:51:52 GMT

From article <1993Jan25.174939.9497@adobe.com>, by kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall):
[...]
> 
>  I also heard something about Clinton's press secretary being a woman
>  and having her title, salary and responsibilities diminished, which
>  has never happened before to all her male predecessors.  Anyone know
>  any real details?  I just caught this out of the corner of my ear on
>  the radio.
[...]

No real details, but I believe this is the case.  After all, it's 
Stefonopolis's (sp?) face I keep seeing on TV speaking to reporters.  
Didn't that used to be the press secretary's domain?

The appointment really does smack of tokenism.

SEH
From: baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Romeo and Casanova
Date: 21 Jan 93 21:47:02 GMT
Organization: BT North America, San Jose CA.

In article <C17zt6.wA@ms.uky.edu>, @nx01.mik.uky.edu (Michael J. Chilton) writes:
|> 
|> 	What is it that wemon like so much about Romeo and Casanov 

Flip answer:
	They could spell, knew grammar, and are at least half ficticious.

Real answer:
	They are sweet taboos. Humans are like that.

-- 
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
Xref: sparky soc.men:23401 alt.feminism:7702 soc.singles:38263
From: gds@york.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism,soc.singles
Subject: Re: The Nice Guy Syndrome (was: Re: Male Men Bashers)
Date: 27 Jan 93 15:43:22 GMT
Reply-To: gds@cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner)
Organization: in your face!
Originator: gds@york.cs.ucla.edu

In article <1k1bvcINNcs5@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>Michael Rivero writes:
>>  Just because someone is available for dating doesn't mean they are a jerk.
>Certainly not.  However, past a certain age (say, two standard deviations 
>above the mean age of marriage), one would be wise to consider *why* a 
>certain person is "available for dating".  There may be a really good 
>reason (eg, one of the sweetest people I know was widowed at the age of
>25).  Or they may be a jerk.  Let the datee beware.

Or they may have not found a compatible person yet, who was interested
in them as well.
Xref: sparky soc.men:23310 soc.women:23090
From: cgates@mitre.org (Curt Gates)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Gender Discrimination
Date: 26 Jan 93 14:14:42 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation

In article <C1Fzvx.D5@world.std.com> ematz@world.std.com (Ed Matz) writes:
>  But one
> feminist has observed (on NPR, no less!) another double-standard at
> work:
What did you expect from NPR? Did you hear Terry Gross when she 
interviewed Robert Bly a few months ago?  That interview, and a couple of 
others, motivated me to go out and buy his book and not listen to NPR on 
the way home for a while.  And not renew my membership to a local NPR 
station.

 What a tough struggle for a mom that makes more money in a few months 
than a schoolteacher makes in 20 years. Gag, choke, wretch.  Cmon, Zoe, 
you coulda showed more class than that.  At least it once again shows that 
breaking the law is an equal opportunity activity.  Next candidate, please.

 
Xref: sparky soc.men:23392 alt.feminism:7696
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Gender Discrimination
Date: 26 Jan 93 23:03:34 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: The Scorpions Nest

#   Assuming these news reports are correct, I think it's outrageous
#   that the Clinton Administration is starting off with such a 
#   sexist prologue.  Not to mention the fact that the nation can
#   hardly be well-served by potentially denying half (or probably
#   more because most lawyers are men) of the otherwise qualified
#   candidates merely due to their gender. 

In article <147772@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> 
lisa@zeppelin.llnl.gov (Lisa Corsetti) writes:

>How does it feel?

Like REAL equality, feminists' style.

>- Lisa

Hillel                                    gazit@cs.duke.edu

"Y'know .. REAL equality, REAL paybacks to women for being turned into
what they are by society would involve switching places and making men
the 2nd class citizens for the next 3000 years or so."  --  Jeanette Dravk
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
From: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Subject: Re: Gender Discrimination
Originator: hillyard@tiger.msc.cornell.edu
Reply-To: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell-Materials-Science-Center
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 15:59:32 GMT

From article <1k819gINN3gh@gap.caltech.edu>, by peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri):
> hillyard@msc.cornell.edu writes:
> 
>>The appointment really does smack of tokenism.
> 
> Just goes to show you can't win.  If a man gets the job then it's
> "sexism".  If a woman gets the job it's "tokenism".  Make up your 
> minds folks!

Now Michal, thats two of my posts in a row with the context deleted and
a cheap shot taken.  I think the least you could have done was have included
which appointment it was.

In case you forgot, this was about the press secretary appointment.  The
job that has been redefined to have less responsibility than it had before.
The obvious reason for that is Clinton didn't think she could do the job,
but wanted to be able to say he appointed a woman to this important and
prestigeous position.  Sure does say tokenism to me.

SEH
Newsgroups: soc.men
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Men bonding with their Children.
From: <RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Wednesday, 27 Jan 1993 07:25:36 EST
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

Ed Matz makes a very good point about the difference between various kinds
of feminists.  There are many fairminded faminists on the net and it would
be a pleasure to work with and not against them.  Also my daughter, who is
loving and gentle (usually!) calls herself a feminist and I have no trouble
with that.  But man-hating or bitter feminists do exist and whether their
anger and bitterness is justified or not, it must be faced that they ARE
an obstacle to a happy society.

Rohit Parikh
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: kwill@lunatix.uucp (Kelvin Williams)
Subject: masturbation
Organization: Lexington Public Access Unix. -KY- (606) 255-9121
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 17:10:50 GMT


	Hello fellas.

		I have been wanting to ask a question for some time now so 
here goes.

	A while back I was put into a very weird situation, I popped a 
'woody' (had an erection) at work.  I was called into another room (with a 
woody) on my way a noticed (or my mind was playing tricks on me) that a lot 
more people were staring at my crotch than usual.  What my question is, is 
there a way that any man can masturbate (jack-off) without being seen?  Now 
take into consideration that I work with two more men and a woman in my 
office.  I know that there would be cum in the pants, but I would rather 
have cum than be embarrassed again by a hard-on.

					Kelvin
	
-- 
==============================================================================
 	What'd you say?  Backup my harddrive?  But, I can't find the
                               reverse switch..
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mcole@sub-40 (Mary Cole)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: domestic  violence & the super bowl
Date: 25 Jan 93 23:12:01 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

Here's a message I received today. Please add your support to it and help  
others:


|>From POMONA.CLAREMONT.EDU!JRYCENGA Wed Jan 20 11:52:44 1993
|
|For political activists, or media watchdogs, or just concerned
|women, here's a quick something you can do to help prevent
|and stop domestic violence.
|
|Super Bowl Sunday - which this year is January 31, here in southern
|California at the Rose Bowl in Pasadena - is the single worst day
|for domestic violence in the USA.  There is an increase of as much as 40%  
in the volume handled by domestic violence shelters on this
|day.
|
|To try to stem this tide of violence, the Women's Action Coalition
(WAC) of Los Angeles is supporting the campaign by Fairness and Accuracy  
in Reporting (FAIR) to convince NBC (the network carrying the game) to  
carry two Public Service Announcements on domestic violence during the  
Super Bowl this year.  Anna Quindlen of the New York Times wrote a fine  
editorial in the 1/17/93 edition of the Times supporting this effort as  
well.
|
|What I am asking of you - and all your friends (please PLEASE
cross-post this to _any_ lists you can think of) - is to help us with a  
FAX/LETTER blitz on NBC, asking for these PSA's.  Here is a sample letter:
|
|Dick Ebersol
|President, NBC Sports
|NBC
|30 Rockefeller Plaza
|New York, NY  10112
|
|Dear Mr. Ebersol:
|
|We (I) support FAIR's request that you air two Public Service
Announcements on domestic violence during the Super Bowl game.  The Super  
Bowl is one of the most widely viewed television events of the year; it is  
also the day, according to women's shelters, when calls for help increase  
by as much as 40%.
|
|Your broadcast of the Super Bowl will reach a huge audience.  By your  
airing PSAs, NBC will be bringing to a national audience the critical and  
important issue of domestic violence.
|
|Sincerely,
|
|
|   You can rephrase or rewrite this letter to your liking, but please FAX  
or write them immediately.
|
|To reach NBC by FAX:  212-664-5835.
|
|   Thanks for helping - you may save someone's life, or skeletal
structure, or eyesight.
|
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.dads-rights