HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fedrick@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Kelvin W. Fedrick)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Right to not support
Date: 31 Jul 92 05:10:53 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

In article <1992Jul30.024024.4916@tandem.com> louis@Tandem.com (Louis Meadows) writes:
>
>  Thats a wonderfull thought, But as far as I know it's still very very hard to get DNA tests done.   We are still in the dark ages of BLOOD tests that are unable to prove who the father is.   I think at best the blood test proves there is 95 percent chance that you are the father.  They CAN prove you are not the father in some cases, however you need the mother to consent to a blood test.  

 Huh? Where did you get this 95% figure? I think that is a *gross* over
 estimation. From what I remember, the blood test can at *best* show
 that someone could *not* have been the father, and then only in a small
 percentage of cases (i could be wrong of course). Furthermore, where
 did you get the idea that DNA testing is very very hard to get done.
 As i understand, DNA testing is the standard in rape cases these days
 and if you have the money to have a lab run the thing, what problems
 do you think make it so hard?

-kelvin
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
From: doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey)
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 20:24:56 GMT


In article <1992Jul25.224748.24971@u.washington.edu> jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress) writes:
>No man should be dehumanized by the removal of his "Right To Not Support".
>Be that financial support to minor children anything else.
>Social Security provides for people who are over 65

By forcing working humans to fork over their earnings to the program.

>-- it should further provide for the minor children.
>Every human should have the choice of who he will or will not support!!

You obviously don't believe this, as you've just proposed forcing me and you
to support this kid.  Or do you think Social Security money comes straight
from God?

I won't even touch the whole idea that people shouldn't even be responsible
for their own children.

  Thanks awfully,
            Patrick

Xref: sparky soc.men:13565 soc.women:13938 alt.censorship:6141 talk.politics.misc:35300 alt.folklore.urban:19449 misc.legal:14679
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,alt.folklore.urban,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Ed Nilges and Snuff Films?
Date: 22 Jul 92 19:18:51 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA

ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) writes:
: Please be careful with this topic -- you might make it happen!  I've heard
: that there is a group of bored rich people who like to make urban legends
: come true.  Remember the "Little Buddy" stories?  There was a kid named

This is also an urban legend that has been around for a while. I don't
recall when I first heard the story. I have never seen any documentation
showing that such a group actually exists.

Bill
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: 2/3 of shoplifters ar
X-To: DUANE HENTRICH
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 18:58:00 GMT

baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich) writes...
DH> And anyway, shoplifting a pack of Pampers(tm) is much more morally defensibl
DH> than shoplifting a semi-automatic weapon so you can take over the neighborho
DH> drug trade.

That is QUITE stereotypical, Duane.

W.
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Lt. Commander Data is programmed in RPG/2400!!!
Xref: sparky soc.men:13930 soc.women:14370 alt.dads-rights:1670 alt.child-support:2318
Newsgroups: soc.men

In soc.men, schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz) writes:


>   Susan Vella, president of the National Association of Women and the
>   Law, said the idea that women ought to be compensated for lost earning
>   potential is a step in the right direction.


Can I quit my job, leach off my wife's income, blow her off in a divorce,
and claim that the extra money I suck off from her living after the divorce
is justifiable because "I suffered a momentum loss in the workplace"?
I think that too would be a step in the right direction.  Of course Susan
thinks it's a step in the right direction.  After all, she's on the receiving
end of this deal.


Xref: sparky soc.men:13625 soc.women:14001
From: aviksroy@athena.mit.edu (Avik S. Roy)
Subject: Re: P.C. Professors Try to Censor Anti-Feminist Book
Keywords: Paglia's "Sexual Personae"
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 17:38:59 GMT

lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

) :Who is Carol Tavris?  Are we talking about a book, or articles?
) :The nice thing about discussing whether or not gender differences are "supposed"
) :is that they are grounded in scientific study and can't be deconstructed out of
) :political whim.  Can you share with us some of Carol Tavris' assertions on gender
) :differences?
)
)	You can find it all in _The Mismeasure of Woman_, which she
) recently published.

In the meantime, can you provide a synopsis?
Xref: sparky soc.men:13599 rec.nude:3495
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: soc.men,rec.nude
Subject: Re: New York, Nudity, and Women
Date: 22 Jul 92 23:04:00 GMT
Reply-To: tjw+@pitt.edu
Followup-To: rec.nude
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <Jul.20.13.54.38.1992.24348@remus.rutgers.edu>, clong@remus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long) writes:

> I just wanted to comment that I'm very proud of the women who worked
> for the recent ruling that allows women to go topless in New York.
> Hopefully, society will eventually become enlightened to the point
> where we are no longer ashamed of our bodies.  As for now, some women
> now have the freedom that men have always had.

But for how long is what I wonder.

It will not take much time for some "fundy" group to decide that this offends
them and that they need to protect women.

Terry

Xref: sparky soc.men:13611 soc.women:13987 alt.censorship:6169 talk.politics.misc:35476 alt.folklore.urban:19522 misc.legal:14704
From: steve@fulcrum.oz.au (Steve Taylor)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,alt.folklore.urban,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Ed Nilges and Snuff Films?
Date: 23 Jul 92 07:16:20 GMT
Organization: The Fulcrum Consulting Group

In <62588@cup.portal.com> ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) writes:

>I've heard
>that there is a group of bored rich people who like to make urban legends
>come true.

Damn. My irony detector's gone out of whack again. Is this a good self
referential joke orjust the silliest posting I've read all week?


							Steve
Xref: sparky soc.men:13514 soc.women:13886
From: revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Do Women Really Want Higher-Earning Men as Partners?
Date: 21 Jul 92 17:37:23 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system


          Sheaffer writes:
 
               But,  once  again, who  said  that  "more aggressive"  means
               "generally superior"? 
 
          Brian Replies:
 
               Actually, you  did, Robert,  but not  in so  many words;  in
          those wonderful debates on sci.skeptic, you  equated 'aggression'
          with the  ill-defined 'ability to  succeed,' and also  wrote that
          men were  more likely  to succeed than  women were.  The exchange
          read as follows:
 
               Brian Wrote:
 
               But  here we  have  Goldberg and  Sheaffer maintaining  that
               women  just don't  pack  the gear  to  succeed. They're  not
               aggressive  enough to  gain political  power, they  say; the
               feminist movement  is just  trying to give  women an  unfair
               advantage. (Note that the feminist movement might be  trying
               to _gain_ a level playing  field isn't even considered as  a
               possibility.) In  other words, men  are built to  succeed on
               their  own  merits;  women  cheat  by  banding  together and
               starting this cockamamie _movement_.
 
               Sheaffer Replied:
 
               Some  do, some  don't.  Many MEN  don't 'pack  the  gear' to
               succeed; just   look around you.  On average, more men  than
               women  will   succceed  at   high-stress,  highly-demanding,
               highly-paid jobs than women will. Of course, some women will
               do just fine.... And a woman who works her way to the top of
               a major corporation is  every bit as qualified as a  man who
               does the same. There just aren't *as many* of them.

               Brian Replied:

               Conversely, women are more likely to fail than men are.
               Of  course,  if  corporations  hired  and   promoted  people
               according to the kind  of "impartial, accurate, and unbiased
               science" Robert Sheaffer promotes, a woman who works her way
               to the top will be a rare thing indeed. After all, why put a
               woman in charge-- or even _hire_ women in  the first place--
               when  _men_ are  more  likely to  succeed?  Seems like  this
               'patriarchy'   thing   is  best   perpetuated   through  job
               discrimination.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian "Rev. P-K" Siano                                  revpk@cellar.org
"Best Reason Not to Vote for Perot-- If he wins, it might encourage Bill 
Gates to run."
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: A feminist style socio-economic reform!!
Date: 21 Jul 92 20:03:55 GMT
Organization: The Society for Containment of Trivial Thoughts
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

(SUBBAIAH,Santharam) writes:

>REFORM 1.
>	"All women who deliver normal children should be compensated in
>monetory terms for their child bearing services".

By this logic anyone who ever does anything ought to be
compensated by everyone else for whatever it was that
they did because it could conceivably benefit someone.

We're not talking farm animals here. . .

>P.S. Depending on the response for this proposal other reforms I have in my 
>mind would be released.

Please do not release such dangerous matter until many, many government
studies have been done in Australia first.

Thanks.

D.
Xref: sparky soc.men:13644 soc.women:14027 alt.dads-rights:1560 alt.child-support:2213
From: schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: How much $$ is enough?
Date: 23 Jul 92 19:07:46 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada

In article <1992Jul23.141548.5118@cbfsb.cb.att.com> bsearfos@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (bryan.d.searfos) writes:

>This assumes that both parents have agreed - or at least the man thinks this
>is best.  What if the mother stays home with the kids against the desires 
>of the father?  

My impression is that if they had children he'd be SOL,
regardless of his wishes in the matter.  A traditional
family setup seems to be the default assumption, along with
a continuing sympathy with the tender years doctrine.

If they were childless he might have a chance, but since
this is still a traditional arrangement the burden of proof
would probably end up in his lap.

BTW, here's some of the legal rationale (I.M. Ellman, "The
Theory of Alimony" (1989) 5 CLFQ at 53):

"..the traditional wife makes her marital investment early
in the expectation of a deferred return: sharing in the
fruits of her husband's eventual market success.  The
traditional husband realizes his gains from the marriage in
its early years, in the form of increased earning capacity
and the production of children; his contribution is
deferred until the marriage's later years when he shares
the fruits of his enhanced earning capacity with his wife."

This is completely one-sided: ignored is the father's
financial support of wife and family from the very
beginning, the benefit of children to the mother
throughout, and the father's loss of contact with his
family after divorce.  If children constitute a "gain"
according to this, why is their removal from the life
of the father after divorce not recognized as a legitimate
burden?

-S. Schultz
Xref: sparky soc.men:14025 soc.women:14441 alt.dads-rights:1699 alt.child-support:2345
From: schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: How much $$ is enough?
Date: 31 Jul 92 20:04:30 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada

In article <1992Jul31.164055.11976@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com>
bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:

>)Actually the husband's earnings never enter into the calculations;
>)the award is the same whether he's a surgeon or a student.
>
>What happens when this "fine" formula then comes up with a number that
>the husband is absolutely financially unable to pay?  The usual? (Garnish
>his wages up to the maximum, and continue pile up the debt of everything
>unpaid)

I think it would be treated like any other marital debt; in this case 
perhaps the best analogy would be a loan for a failed business (only 
now I suppose you'd call it a 'loan' to his wife, but interest-free).
If he couldn't pay it straight off, I'd guess the judge would try to
set a reasonable payment schedule.  And if that were impossible, then
declaring bankruptcy might be the only escape route.  Or if there were
some marital assets, that would help.  For example, if her income
loss were $30K, and the marital home was assessed at $30K (maybe paid
for with help of parents), and those were the only marital debts and
assets, then the judge could nullify her loss and settle the divorce
by awarding her the home.

It'll be interesting to watch for the fallout in the coming months.
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.censorship,alt.politics.correct
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: P.C. Professors Try to Censor Anti-Feminist Book
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 16:45:51 GMT
Keywords: Paglia's "Sexual Personae"

In article <1992Jul29.012748.20599@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

)	I think that this is one of the questions that Carol Tavris
)addresses in her book, and I think that she disagrees with this
)supposed result.
)
)	One thing that most of the popularizations lack is
)appreciation of individual variation. How does the mean of one's
)favorite psychological sex difference compare to its variation in each
)sex? Is it something like:
)
)
)   /\      /\
)  /  \    /  \
)_/    \__/    \_   (1)
)
)or something like
)
)   /X\
)  // \\
)_//   \\_          (2)
)

Yep.  She (Travis) wasn't quite as naive as my off-the-cuff review painted
her, other people have commented on this topic by E-mail.

The math issue is a good example of this general issue.  (I'm not 100%
sure this was Travis).  There *is* a small difference in the mean scores
between men and women on math tests, but the bulk of men and women really
aren't that different - if you know a person's math score, you probably
don't know that much about their gender.

If you look way out at the tail of the distribution, though, (high achievers)
this small initial difference will be magnified.

So the distribution of math scores is really more like (2) [distribution (1)
_would_ allow you to predict a person's gender from their math score], but
there are *some* differences between men and women in measured math
achievement, and even a small difference will tend to be magnified when
looking at the 'tail' of high-acheivers.

Xref: sparky soc.men:13751 soc.women:14150 misc.legal:14918 alt.child-support:2247 alt.dads-rights:1592
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Ponzi Schemes and Rights (Was: Right To Not Support)
Date: 27 Jul 92 15:49:55 GMT
	<VIXIE.92Jul26161023@cognition.pa.dec.com>
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: NMSU Computer Science

<In article <VIXIE.92Jul26161023@cognition.pa.dec.com> vixie@pa.dec.com (Paul A Vixie) writes:

<I regret that this article must be a flame.

<jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress) writes:
<>   No man should be dehumanized by the removal
<>   of his "Right To Not Support".  Be that 
<>   financial support to minor children anything
<>   else.  Slavery should be outlawed!

<Slavery is outlawed.  Child support is not, in and of itself, slavery.

	Some will strongly disagree with you.

<There is no "right not to support".  What we have in the United States
<amounts to an inconsistent and incomplete "right to be left alone".
<We all have the right to keep our zippers zipped.  If we don't, there
<are consequences.  The right of the child to be supported supercedes
<any choice you might like to make -- because you had a choice, and the
<child did not.

	Just out of curiousity; how do you feel about abortion
	as a "choice"?

<>     Social Security provides for people who
<>   are over 65 -- it should further provide for 
<>   the minor children.

<   You broke it, you bought it.  There is no reason why you, as a presumed
<   payer of social security, should be required to support any children not
<   your own.  Likewise anyone else paying into social security.

	Ah, now we get to the new subject line. 

	If it is wrong for someone to pay into SS for children
	that are not his, how can you justify ANYONE under the
	age of 40 paying into SS? Look at the demographics; look
	at the nature of SS. Ponzi, or pyramid, schemes only
	continue to "work" as long as new suckers are brought
	in at a faster rate than old suckers "move up". When
	an insufficient number of new suckers are coming in,
	the old suckers can no longer be paid; this point
	will be reached in SS sometime early in the next
	century.

	Thus, if you are going to argue that it is "wrong" to
	pay into SS for someone else's children, I assert that
	it is "wrong" to force people under the age of 40
	to pay into SS at all, as they won't see a dime of
	that money, ever.

	By the way, there ARE payments from SS for "other
	people's children"; the dependants of disabled 
	or dead workers.
	
	Does this change your opinion?

	Followup set to soc.men
Xref: sparky soc.men:14026 soc.women:14442 misc.legal:15303 alt.child-support:2346 alt.dads-rights:1700
From: rfelix@netcom.com (Robbie Felix)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Date: 31 Jul 92 20:02:19 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Jul31.170017.27645@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> wgb3@pyuxf.uucp (25337-buoni) writes:
>From porthos!walter!att!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!destroyer!uunet!ogicse!plains!news.u.washington.edu!news Fri Jul 31 12:44:33 EDT 1992
>

>
>>  Social Security provides for people who
>>are over 65 -- it should further provide for 
>>the minor children.
>

>
>>  Every human should have the choice of who
>>he will or will not support!!
>

Well I will agree to support the unwanted children of this person
*PROVIDED* I have the right to provide a vasectomy to him after his
one "accident". I reserve the right to choose the weapon.

rf
Xref: sparky soc.men:14019 soc.women:14435 misc.legal:15301 alt.child-support:2342 alt.dads-rights:1696
From: root@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick   )
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.ineq
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Date: 1 Aug 92 15:27:55 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

fedrick@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Kelvin W. Fedrick) writes:

>  What voluntary choice!? I think that the whole point of this was that
>  it was *not* the voluntary choice of the man to become a father and
>  there is a viable, legal alternative to this happening, abortion. If
>  the woman choses not to have an abortion the man has *involutarily*
>  become a father.

If the conception is the result of intercourse, and that intercourse
wasn't forced, then your premise fails. If a man chooses not to use
contraceptive protection (foolish) then he forfeits his 'right' not to
support.

This argument goes on and on, and takes a narrow focus to POST-conception.
Men do have a choice, but it must be exercised PRE-conception. I don't
know how many people believe that a woman should be forced to abort a
child, but I suspect a miniscule minority.

>  We don't need sympathy, we need CHANGE!


---
Bob Kirkpatrick  --  Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA
root@dogear.spk.wa.us           bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us
From: schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: How much $$ is enough?
Date: 25 Jul 92 15:15:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: unixg.1992Jul25.212908.8330
Organization: University of British Columbia

J.R. Stoner writes:
>Yes, indeed.  Why should anybody in his right mind ever get married.

In the not-too-distant future, maybe to escape the bachelor tax.
:-P

-S. Schultz
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
From: irvine@ntmtv.UUCP (Chuck Irvine)
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 01:34:30 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.232100.10663@u.washington.edu>, jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress) writes:
|> Chuck Irvine writes
|> > I think in the main he is being selfish (which, to an extent, 
|> > he and we must be) and vindictive (and I don't blame him 
|> > for this either), and he would do better to admit this.
|> 
|>     You don't know me.
|>     How ignorant of you to make assumptions about me!

Are my assumptions totally inaccurate? 

Some assumptions reveal ignorance, others
reveal insight.
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: swells@triton.unm.edu (Ed Gruberman)
Subject: Re: All feminists are lesbian man-haters
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 16:55:39 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <01GMNGHCA7QO91WGYX@vms.cis.pitt.edu> ABBST@vms.cis.pitt.edu writes:
    robert@informix.com (Robert Coleman) writes:
        And all feminists are lesbian man-haters.

  Please!  You can't smear all lesbians this way!

  Can't you just say "most"?

  Al

of course not.  he's trying to piss people like me off;  baiting us
into a flame war which at the moment i refuse to be sucked into.

shannon the mouthy pushy ranting feminist man-loving broad.
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc