HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tron@tc.fluke.COM (Peter Barbee)
Subject: Re: K-Mark Hostages
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 22:13:07 GMT

Janice Kendall writes:
>Actually, I hope all you fathers out there are nowadays allowing your sons
>to cry and show emotion.  I interpret this violence as being created by men
>who have no way of dealing with these overwhelming emotions other than to
>blame and act out against any one they can find.  The historical role of
>women has been the family caretaker, which has also meant dealing with the
>family emotions.  Men could not show emotion because that would be showing
>a weakness.
>
>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.
>
>And mothers, this goes for you as well.  Women have an equal responsibility
>to raise boys & girls who are allowed to feel and help them learn to deal with 
>uncomfortable feelings as well as allowing/accepting pleasurable feelings.

There's value in further exploration of "Men could not show emotion
because that would be showing a weakness."  Showing weakness could get
a person killed.  More importantly how can a person kill another, as in
combat, without emotionally distancing themselves from the act - and 
eventually from much of the world around them.  Of course we are no
longer all trained as warriors - but then what are those childhood
games like "Cowboys and Indians" all about?

Certainly the man in the K-mart "cracked" under pressure.  Certainly
his solution can't be acceptable.  But much more happened to him than
having his "emotional crutch" leave.  We need to recognize and deal with
that as well.

Peter B
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: bowling and child support
Date: 14 Sep 92 14:06:18 GMT
Reply-To: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <1992Sep13.064525.20969@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
>out (as in dating).  She told him that she didn't have any money to go
>bowling with him because her child support check hadn't showed up.

	She might have spent her bowling money on Desitin and formula.

>I guess it brings up several important questions.  Is it child support
>or is it alimony in the guise of child support?  Many non-custodial

	Alimony in the guise of child support.
From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Is sexual freedom a good thing? (Was Re: Right To Not Support)
Date: 7 Sep 92 09:01:54 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

In article <715830386@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>In article <VIXIE.92Sep6173524@cognition.pa.dec.com> 
>vixie@pa.dec.com (Paul A Vixie) writes:
>>The basis by which an adult female is granted the legal right to terminate a
>>pregnancy has nothing to do with "last resort...birth control" and it has
>>nothing to do with "reproductive freedom".  
>
>Read sometime what feminists wrote about abortion right *before* 1974.
>The traditional view point was that sexual freedom is a dangerous thing
>and it should be controlled.  The "penalty" for sex was either the
>risks of unwanted pregnancy or to get sterilized.
>
>Feminists demanded their sexual freedom and defined (rightly IMO) female
>sexuality as a good thing that should not be controlled by the state.  
>Now we see the same feminists define *male* sexuality as a bad thing.  
>The "penalty" for sex should be either the financial risks of unwanted 
>pregnancy or to get sterilized.
>
>>Legally, this "right" comes out
>
>Leave all the lawyer like arguments at the door.  Let's talk about

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

>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?

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...

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.


-- 
Thor Lancelot Simon	 tls@panix.COM

"Better be careful there.  John might decide to start taking legal action
against people who refuse to buy stuff from him."  --Kevin McBride
Xref: sparky soc.men:16077 soc.women:16261 talk.rape:2402 alt.child-support:3080
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,talk.rape,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: EuStress Has Trouble With Words
Date: 8 Sep 92 03:22:38 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

In article <1992Sep8.002927.18462@ultb.isc.rit.edu> 
kls4344@ritvax.isc.rit.edu writes:
>But what if *no one*, both biological parents included, 
>want to support this child?  

Have you ever heard about adoption?

Do you know what the length of adoption waiting lists for
newborn babies?

(I suggest "choice for men" long before the baby will be born so
the woman will have the choice of abortion or the time to look
for the kind of adoption (e.g. open) she might want.)
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten)
Subject: Re: Male bashing in other newsgroups
Summary: Enjoy it?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 13:58:25 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.034508.18534@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts) writes:
> I think it is a pretty sad person who can't enjoy this.
> 
> Ken
> 

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.

2)  The other problem is that it sets the tone for the entire
    debate about men and women.  If we allow women to routinely
    characterize us (as one of my favorite women comics once did)
    as "bears with furniture", we are pleading guilty to things
    we have not done and losing any credibility we might have over
    important issues.

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.  Well I am catching up
    on a week's worth of newspapers and one of her columns is non
    stop male bashing from beginning to end.  Her main complaint is
    that when men do anything around the house it's called "helping"
    while anything women do is called "life".  naturally she 
    not only belittles what men do, but takes both sides of the
    argument - making women sound noble and men stupid.  The kind
    of list I posted prepares women to agree with this kind of crap
    but also assume its 100% correct.


marc colten

Xref: sparky soc.men:16292 soc.women:16459 alt.child-support:3134 alt.dads-rights:2239
From: chpetk@gdr.bath.ac.uk (Toby Kelsey)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Date: 10 Sep 92 21:02:50 GMT
Organization: School of Chemistry, University of Bath, UK

In article <1992Sep9.161039.23506@news.nd.edu> slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:
	[...]
>Your parenthetical remarks present a very thorny situation.  In fact, I 
>think it comes up more often than a lot of folks would guess.  I personally
>am aware of at least two women who gave birth without notifying the fathers.
	[...]
>But this brings up what I consider fundamental ethical problems: does 
>the child have a right to know her/his father?  Does the father have a right
>to know (or be aware of) his biological children?  

This depends on whether you believe fathers have legal
responsibilities or rights towards their children. 
Assuming you do, then the argument is simple:

The justification for these legal responsibilities,
including justifying pursuing NCPs for child support,
is that this is on behalf of the child: The child
deserves the financial support.

But having parents to care for it and spend time with it is
far more important for a child's upbringing and mental
health that having an extra source of income.  Therefore
logically there should be far greater penalties for
preventing access to the parents (including not telling
them about the child) than for failing to pay child support.

If you think fathers have rights in respect of their children,
then the right to know they exist must be one of the most basic.

Of course the Law has nothing to do with logic.  It is not
even a crime to fail to inform the father/potential father.
(The crime should be commensurate with child kidnapping, since
this is effectively what has been done.)

>There are many very practical reasons for a child to know her/his father, 
>not the least of which is medical history.   

Do you really think the best reason for a child to know it's
parents is 'medical history'?  Or is this just for fathers?

>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.

My gast is truly flabbered.  Of all the reasons I would want to know
my children, this is about number 2,592,734th on the list.

Sue, what will(did) you say to your SO when you want(ed) children?

Sue:	I would like to have children.
SO:	Why do you want children?
Sue:	I would like to have someone make a claim on my estate when I am dead.
SO:	!?!?!?!?!

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

Toby

-- 
Toby Kelsey
School of Chemistry,  # JANET: chpetk@uk.ac.bath.gdr, otherwise
University of Bath.   # chpetk%gdr.bath.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re:  Impact of the absent father
Date: 9 Sep 92 17:21:20 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

#Consumers Report claimed that condoms are 85% effective.  In other words,
#over one year of using condoms, there is 15% probability for an unwanted
#pregnancy.  In 7 years, the expectation is more than 1...

In article <34949@cbmvax.commodore.com> lauren@cbmvax.commodore.com 
(Lauren Brown - CATS) writes:
>	Note: the figure of 15% for condom failure also includes those
>	instances where the condom was mis-used.

And car accidents statistics also include those drivers who 
mis-used their cars.

The point is that:
1) Condoms are not very safe, but the problem of "choice for men"
   is down played.

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.

Somehow, quite a few pro-choice women can't give the respect they demand.
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: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 10:10:10 GMT

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."

Xref: sparky soc.men:15971 soc.women:16173
From: lauren@cbmvax.commodore.com (Lauren Brown - CATS)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re:  Impact of the absent father
Date: 9 Sep 92 15:56:29 GMT
Reply-To: lauren@cbmvax.commodore.com (Lauren Brown - CATS)
Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA

In article <715965054@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:

>
>Consumers Report claimed that condoms are 85% effective.  In other words,
>over one year of using condoms, there is 15% probability for an unwanted
>pregnancy.  In 7 years, the expectation is more than 1...


	Note: the figure of 15% for condom failure also includes those
	instances where the condom was mis-used.

	Or, in other words, using a condom for a water balloon, or wearing
	in on your head won't help to control unwanted births:-)

-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Lauren Brown     -- CBM   >>Commodore Amiga Technical Support<<
                                    1200 Wilson Drive
                                  West Chester, PA 19380                     
                   UUCP     ...{allegra,uunet,rutger,}!cbmvax!lauren 
                                    PHONE 215-431-9100
				
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: erik@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Erik Lode)
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 18:46:33 GMT
Subject: Re: Impact of the absent father
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: soc.men

stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul) writes:

> 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?

  Aha!  There's the answer--just don't ejaculate.  Maybe a tight rubber
band or a small touniquet--or just keep thinking about baseball.

	:-)
From: fedrick@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Kelvin W. Fedrick)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Do Men Have Reproductive Rights?
Date: 9 Sep 92 04:37:05 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

In article <1992Sep8.122518.6630@walter.cray.com> jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood) wri
tes:
>
> The point is Kelvin, the best interests of the children is soaking
>fathers for every dime they can get because the courts, t.v., Hillary,
>the Children's Defense Fund(S FROM MEN), ACES, feminazis and
>Donahues all presume that fathers don't count, just their paychecks.

 Why do I get the feeling you think I am disagreing with the original
 posting? I didn't say anything negative about it! *My* point had nothing
 to do with the greater content of the posting. I simply asked a question.

 Relax and just *read* what I said instead of trying to read stuff *into*
 what I said.

>Kelvin, spend a day at family court.

 I have. I am still getting reamed and still trying to pay my lawyer off.
 What does this have to do with the question I asked?

-kelvin
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician)
Subject: Re: Hating Men with Full Force
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 92 09:24:55 GMT
Organization: Society for the Preservation of E. coli

In article <1992Sep7.124459.26517@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> root@Turing.ORG (sinister) writes:
>There is a reason that many people, groups of people (women, Queers, etc..)
>are angry, and they are learing to heal. Healing has many stages, and for
>many of us, denial is right out, and we're into the rage portion. I suppose
>we'll be done with rage about when 'they' (and I suggest now that you merely
>by being male are among 'them' in terms of feminist rage) are ready to start
>dealing with their denial. (I'm also a male, but I'd have to be a 'us' in this
>case, and not a 'them')

You seem to miss the point.

We aren't saying that people aren't oppressed.  We aren't saying that
sexism doesn't happen.

We are saying that being male doesn't make one a sexist.  To hate all
men for the actions of particulars is not a healthy thing to do.

You speak of denial as if all men had something to deny.

If a person is going to rage, that rage will only be useful against
the people who have actually caused the conditions.  I am not one of
those people, so I am going to be justifiably upset when someone rages
against me merely because of sex.

-- 
Brian Evans                |     "Bad mood, bad mood...Sure I'm in a bad mood!
bevans@carina.unm.edu      |      I haven't had sex...*EVER!*" -- Virgin Mary
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Male bashing in other newsgroups
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 05:38:49 GMT

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:
(much deleted bs)

>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.

I don't particularly like to see this kind of bs in any newsgroup, but
it seems on par to the "why cucumbers are better than men" and "why
beer is better than women" jokes we often see on different newsgroups.
I don't like it and I think it shows prejudice, but...  I'm sure I
could go to the humour newsgroups and find some jokes that offend me.

However, when it's passed around at work, this is wrong, imo.  I
suggest the next time your company has a seminar, etc. on sexual
harassment, you bring this up as an example of some of the male
bashing that is going on.  Or ask the women who are passing it around
what they would think of a similar list about women.

BTW, has anyone seen the commercial for ice cream (can't remember
which brand) that has a man begging like a dog as a woman decides
whether or not to give him ice cream?  I only saw it a couple of
times.  Maybe the company running the ad came to its senses and killed
the ad.
From: robert@informix.com (Robert Coleman)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Male bashing in other newsgroups
Date: 14 Sep 92 19:51:27 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

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

>In <10678@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke) writes:

>>I think it is a pretty sad person who
>>    { [ [can't laugh | laughs at] | [can't judge | judges] ] a person who }*
>>enjoys this.

>I think it's a happy person who can have a quick chuckle at this and move on.

	Ah, yes, ignorance *is* bliss! ;-)

Robert C.
-- 
----------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: My company has not yet seen fit to
	    elect me as spokesperson. Hmmpf.
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.rape,alt.child-support
From: kls4344@ritvax.isc.rit.edu (Person in flux)
Subject: Re: EuStress Has Trouble With Words
Reply-To: kls4344@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 00:29:27 GMT

In article <1992Sep5.225145.10663@u.washington.edu>, 
hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress) writes:

>   The child should be supported by people who ***CHOOSE***
>   to support him.  

But what if *no one*, both biological parents included, want to support this
child?  That's where I cannot understand your viewpoint regarding your
paternity.   

What would you do with your son if your son's biological mother was equally
adamant as you about not supporting him?

Katie
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: cgates@mitre.org (Curt Gates)
Subject: Re: Male Bashers
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 12:12:03 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.190508.4230@news.ysu.edu> ad815@yfn.ysu.edu (John S. 
Kennedy) writes:
> It always leaves me wondering ... what could have possibly happened to 
some
> of these women to make them hate men so much? 
> 
> And, quite possibily, a more important question -- what the heck do they
> want? 

Why not ask these questions on *that* newsgroup?  I would be interested in 
reading the answers they give you.

Newsgroups: soc.men
From: pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek)
Subject: Re: What is it that the men want?
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 92 00:54:26 GMT

I think Seinfeld once said something like:
"Women know what men want.  Men know what men want.  What do men want?
 We want women!"

--
Paul Ciszek, pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu | No nation was ever drunk when wine was
                                   | cheap.   -- Thomas Jefferson
Xref: sparky soc.men:16483 soc.women:16652
From: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: K-Mark Hostages
Date: 16 Sep 92 00:20:54 GMT
Reply-To: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: Florida State University, but I don't speak for them

In article <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 
>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.

As frequently happens here, the combatants appear to be arguing at cross-
purposes.  Here are two ways of looking at the world:

The first sees the world in terms of blame and responsibility.  Actions are
right or wrong, justified or unjustified.  People have duties, and honor,
and they're good or evil depending on what they do.  Acts are appropriately
condemned, condoned, or glorified by proclamations or statements.  The main 
purpose of this way of looking at the world this way is to assign a place for
every action in the moral system.

The second way sees the world in terms of causal relationships.  It tries to
understand how things come about, whether C is caused by A or B.  The main
purpose of this way of looking at the world is to try to figure out the results
of actions, which is at least partially for the purpose of trying to control
the outcome by controlling the things that lead up to it.

Many aspects of the world can be viewed in both ways.  Each has its own special
attributes.  The first way seems to fit the best with the way people want to
feel emotions.  In fact, when the emotion is strong enough, it seems to be the
only way people can look at the world.  However, the first way doesn't really
help you do anything much.  The second way helps with this; it helps you figure
out ways to act that are likely to succeed.  The disadvantage is that to look
at the world this way you have to use mental attributes other than emotion.
You also are certain to be jumped on by somebody who only wants to see the
situation the first way.

-EMP
Newsgroups: soc.men