HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: How much $$ is enough?
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 16:12:19 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.164958.7358@unixg.ubc.ca> schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz) writes:

)"The Quantilex analysis used published 1981 Census data on nurses' 
)employment income, together with ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT RATES OF 
)FUTURE REAL WAGE GROWTH, to project future earnings for a 
)hypothetical nurse who had not had the 16 year interruption in her 
)nursing career experienced by Ms. Omerod.  Quantilex then projected 
)Ms. Omerod's earnings following her re-entry to nursing.  Using a 
)discount rate of 2.5 per cent (as prescribed by the Ontario Court), 
)quantilex calculated the present value of the income streams 
)projected for the "uninterrupted" career and for Ms. Omerod.  The 
)present value of Ms. Omerod's projected income stream was 
)estimated to be about $103,000 less than if her earning level had not 
)been reduced due to her 16 year career interruption.
)
)"Judge Van Duzer accepted the Quantilex evidence and awarded Ms. 
)Omerod $103,000 against her former husband's share of the 
)proceeds fom the sale of the matrimonial home."
)
)
)This is the procedure proposed by the Department of Justice to
)be used routinely in all future spousal support awards in Canada.
)
)The question begged by this is: if you hired 20 consulting firms
)to make the same independent estimate, how much variation would
)you get in the final result?  I would suspect a great deal.  This
)statistical/hypothetical approach allows wide leeway in 
)interpretation, leaving it vulnerable to abuse.  And this is
)aside from other problems, such as expectations and agreements
)made during the marriage that conflict with the assumptions of the
)divorce/family court.

It's still not really clear what they did - what does 'a discount rate of
2.5%' mean?  And are they looking lifetime impact on earnings, or what?

However, I have at least a little better idea of what this is about now.
And I don't really like it.  From a social aspect, it's probably *not* going
to help the poor woman - it's going to help the already relatively well off
women.  I'm fairly convinced that the divorce process has problems for both
genders - poorer women get screwed by it, and so do richer men.  The current
move to screw the rich man more isn't going to solve the existing social
problems.

From a moral aspect, its a combinaton of changing the rules of the game in
mid-stream, and assigning responsibility for joint decisions retroactively
to the man.

Finally, the only thing I can say is that it appears to me that prenuptial
(and postnuptial too) agreements would be a *very* good idea in Canada. 
Presumably, the court has not yet gone so far as to state that these
arbitrary rules will override any contravailing agreement - (maybe that's
coming next? :-().
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity
From: fedrick@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Kelvin W. Fedrick)
Subject: Re: Right to not support
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 05:14:44 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.123743.22280@ll.mit.edu> yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) writes:
>Case 2: I am remarried.  We have one daughter and another child on
>
>	If I am negligent in these duties, DSS or someone will get
>	called.  They will come, take my kid(s) away, and take
>	care of them.  *I* will not be required to pay for this
>	service or pay "child support".

 Is this right? I seem to recall the county billing people for payments
 made to foster parents or for orphanage? cost.

-kelvin

Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: women and minority
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<11388@optilink.UUCP> <1992Jul27.104430.14396@deeptht.armory.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 21:29:20 GMT


Alt.sex removed from newsgroup line.

Followup to soc.men

<In article <1992Jul27.104430.14396@deeptht.armory.com> rstevew@deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz) writes:
<   In article <11388@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
<   >In article <1992Jul22.152506.26829@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
<   >> In article <11335@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
<   ># #- That's why the liberals have redefined racism as only something done
<   ># #- by whites -- racism by blacks is by definition not racism, because
<   ># #- they aren't running the society.  Didn't you know that?
<   >#  
<   ># 	What "liberals"???
<   ># 
<   ># 	I don't know of many self-professed liberals who admire Louis
<   ># Farrakhan or Sister Souljah.
<   ># 
<   ># /Loren
<   >
<   >I know quite a few self-professed liberals who are prepared to
<   >justify both, and to make claims that racism isn't really racism
<   >if a black person does it, because racism is something that only
<   >the institutional power structure can do.
<   >Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
<   -------------------------

<   You might find a few young naive things out there who do, Cramer, but
<   by far most liberals and progressives do not.
	
	So is Jesse Jackson a "young naive thing"? Is Louis
	Farrakhan a "young naive thing"? Is Walter Mondale
	a "young naive thing"?

	Or are all the above not "liberal" and/or "progressive"?
From: irvine@ntmtv.UUCP (Chuck Irvine)
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 20:02:01 GMT

In article <VIXIE.92Jul27184646@cognition.pa.dec.com>, vixie@pa.dec.com (Paul A Vixie) writes:
|> I would ordinarily not dignify this article with a reply, but since I chose
|> to respond to one of Mr. EuStress's articles it would be rude of me to sit
|> out the resulting flame fest.
|> 
|> [vix]
|> > No.  Every human has a choice of who he will or will not *create*.
|> 
|> [kelvin]
|> # Wrong!!! If a woman is pregnant *she* has a choice to carry to term
|> # and create, or terminate the pregnacy trhough abortion and not create;
|> # the man has *no* such choice at that point. Given this, he at least should
|> # have the right to declare his intent to contribute or not contribute to
|> # the childs care and upbringing, and let the woman decide if she wants to
|> # go it alone or not.
|> 
|> once a woman is pregnant, she has choices and options which have no parallel
|> for the man.  the current basis for her having these choices at all is that
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> there are some intimate and dangerous things that go on in her body to turn
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> a fetus into a baby.  i'm not going to argue here and now about whether that
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Who says that this is the "current basis"? Are you saying that this is the only
acceptable basis in your opinion, or are you calling on a higher authority?
Besides, you ignore the simple fact that the option of abortion allows a woman
to forego the responsibility of child rearing and support and it precisely with
that intent that she chooses this option.

I am not, by the way, siding with Mr. EuStress in general, only on this issue
of fairness. I object, in particular, to his arguments that rationalize his
position as being in the best interest of the children. 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.

|> basis is a good one.  i will only point out that it is the one currently in
|> force and that it does not apply to the man/father at all.
|> 
|> _before_ pregnancy occurs, both "parents" have the same choices.
|> 
|> _after_ birth occurs, both "parents" have the same responsibilities.
|> 
|> what exactly are you asking for here?  something seems inequitable but every
|> time i try to understand it it squirms out of sight.
|> 
|> [vix]
|> > Now stop whining and get your shoulder to the wheel.
|> 
|> [kelvin]
|> # If you are so gungho, why dont you do it for him?
|> 
|> i've got my own wheel.
|> --
|> Paul Vixie, DEC Network Systems Lab	
|> Palo Alto, California, USA         	"Don't be a rebel, or a conformist;
|> <vixie@pa.dec.com> decwrl!vixie		they're the same thing, anyway.  Find
|> <paul@vix.com>     vixie!paul		your own path, and stay on it."  -me
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Garvin Hallucina (3)
X-To: LEON JOEL GROSS
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 01:01:00 GMT

Leon Gross writes...
LJG> Donn Pedro (I believe..) writes...
LJG> >>It seems that people need power to commit genocide.  Women have not
LJG> >>had the polictical or military power to commit such murders.
LJG> >
LJG> >Queen Isabella wasn't a woman?  Queen Mary wasn't a woman?

LJG> But her army was male.


Well...Leon...  The armies may have been male, but their commander in chief
would have had them BEHEADED if they "chose" not to fight.

It hardly matters whether the *armies* were male or female, because most of
the soldiers were intelligent enough to know that their lives would be
forfeit if they decided not to fight.

In this case, I would say that "Queen Isabella was responsible" for the
massacres, despite the gender of her armies, who didn't exactly have a choice
not to fight.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                  "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Its hosermania gone wild, eh. Where's my Beer, eh?
Xref: sparky soc.men:13556 soc.women:13929 alt.censorship:6134 talk.politics.misc:35245 alt.folklore.urban:19430 misc.legal:14671
From: dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber)
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 16:35:21 GMT
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Jul22.050251.25566@news.eng.convex.com>, datri@convex.com (Anthony A. Datri) writes:
> >You've been reading too much MacKinnon.  No such thing as snuff films.
> >At least, none have ever been documented.
> 
> It may be a stretch, but I recently saw a program on a local public station
> that included explicit footage from the Holocaust.

It isn't even a stretch, it's a totally different principle; unless the
person making the film killed Jews/gays/whoever specifically to make the
film.

> -- 
> 
> ======================================================================8--<

-- 

Dan S.
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: soc.feminism
Date: 31 Jul 92 19:19:27 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: Living In Harmony

In article <1992Jul31.152002.12132@javelin.sim.es.com> 
biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel) writes:

>Of course, there are also control queens, as jealous of their prerogatives
>as any 5-year-old with a chocolate bunny, in STella's memorable phrase.

The exact quote is:
"Moderated newsgroups are set up and run by industrial-strength
control queens as jealous of their monopoly as a five-year-old 
with his first chocolate bunny."  --  STella@xanadu.com	

>Frankly, the only thing that bothers me about the arrangement is the fact
>that the moderators post freely on the newsgroup they supposedly moderate.
>This is akin to a televised debate in which the moderators begin to expound
>on their own, occasionally drowning out the participants: ludicrous, offensive,
>and an obvious conflict of interest.

When I have time, it makes the debate more interesting, for me.
(Like giving a head start to a weaker opponent.)  But I would hate to
meet any of them in a place like Harmony ("The Prisoner", chapter 12).
From: stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: women, training, && violence
Date: 31 Jul 92 14:55:18 GMT
Distribution: na


 (Lauren Radner) errs:

+ However, I suspect the oldest man currently "holding this job" is probably 
+ not much over a hundred years old. Most men legally required to "hold this 
+ job" (ie, in the military) are probably closer to between 18 and 23, and 
+ they haven't been "holding this job" for very long. 

But like the rest of human experience, it's the sum total of experience.
That 18 year old may not know diddly about fighting, but his platoon
sargent does. And it goes up to the guys retiring with 30 years experience -
they were taught by other guys with prior experience.

They don't reinvent the wheel every day, ya know?

K'Char
From: stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Pay Discrimination for Women?
Date: 30 Jul 92 21:31:02 GMT
Distribution: na

In article <30JUL199215541920@mary.fordham.edu> nissim@mary.fordham.edu  
(Leonard J. Nissim) writes:

+ Here are the figures for the last four cohorts of new math PhD's:
+ (all have been rounded to the nearest $100)
+ 
+ Year               Median Salary for Men     Median Salary for Women
+ (of first job)      (in first year)             (in first year)
+ _____________      ______________________    _______________________
+ 
+ 1988                  $29,000                    $29,900
+ 1989                   30,500                     31,000
+ 1990                   32,000                     32,500
+ 1991                   33,000                     33,200 
+ 
+ So the wage structure in our field is equally rotten for everyone. :-)
+ Seriously, there is no salary discrimination for new mathematicians by
+ gender.  (One can ask why so few women chose the profession.)   

There is too! Look at the differences in the wages! Down from a $900
advantage to a $200 advantage for women. Obviously a EvilWhiteMailPlot.

K'Char - ;)
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Pay Discrimination for Women?
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 16:22:41 GMT

In article <30JUL199215541920@mary.fordham.edu> nissim@mary.fordham.edu (Leonard J. Nissim) writes:

)Here are the figures for the last four cohorts of new math PhD's:
)(all have been rounded to the nearest $100)
)
)Year               Median Salary for Men     Median Salary for Women
)(of first job)      (in first year)             (in first year)
)_____________      ______________________    _______________________
)
)1988                  $29,000                    $29,900
)1989                   30,500                     31,000
)1990                   32,000                     32,500
)1991                   33,000                     33,200 
)
)So the wage structure in our field is equally rotten for everyone. :-)
)Seriously, there is no salary discrimination for new mathematicians by
)gender.  (One can ask why so few women chose the profession.)   
)

I posted some similar data for IEEE members a while back, with fairly
similar results.  But I think it is worth pointing out that the relative
wages of women vs men drop vs time, so a 'first-year-only' comparison
doesn't give the whole picture.

It's not especially clear, though hom much of the drop in women's salary
relative to men's with time is due to discrimination.

For one thing, men in general tend to work longer hours than women
(statistically), so I'd like to see this accounted for.  Rather than
_assume_ a linear relation between time and money, I'd really like to see
a graphical scatterplot of the two for men and women.  Unfortunately,
I don't have the data to do this.

Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support
From: rajiv@ultra.com (Rajiv Dhingra)
Subject: Re: How much $$ is enough?
Reply-To: rajiv@ultra.com (Rajiv Dhingra)
Organization: Ultra Network Technologies
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 23:40:55 GMT

-> If a married woman quits her job to raise children or maintain the
-> household, her loss in seniority and competitiveness means a loss in
-> income when she re-enters the job market.  This income loss represents
-> a "burden of the marriage" that, in case of divorce, must be shared by
-> her ex-husband, according to a report by the national Commission on the
-> Status of Women and the Department of Justice.  Her ex-husband must
-> shoulder his share of this burden until she re-establishes her career
-> regardless- of the time required, even if it takes the rest of her
-> life.

I am currently in the midst of child custody case.  In all probability,
my wife is going to get custody of the child. She quit her job when
our daughter was born and so the 'primary psychological bonding" of the
child is with the mother.  Keeping the child's best interests at heart,
my wife will get custody of her.

I think I'm getting screwed in the custody case.  Now if the "burden of the
marriage" law existed and I had to pay extra alimony.... well that would
be a little bit too much to take.  I'd rather raise goats in the
Himalayas than take the double whammy.

Rajiv
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Their walls are built of cannonballs.
Date: 28 Jul 92 15:52:55 GMT
Reply-To: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Distribution: na
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <11426@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>That doesn't mean everyone who hates homosexuals was molested as a child

	No, I suppose they could have other crippling emotional problems,
or they could just be mean, nasty bigots...

>my aversion to homosexuals is that they are too busy trying to justify
>child molestation.

	Clayton, you are a lunatic.  A frightening lunatic, but a lunatic
none the less.  

	Maybe if you made friends with some gay people you'd see that they're
not the kind of monsters you've convinced yourself that they are.  

	It never ceases to amaze me that in this day and age people are ready
to kill over who sleeps with who, and what kind of clothes you wear.

					"Ain't no time to hate.
					 Barely time to wait!
					 Oh, oh, what I want to know is
					 where does the time go?"
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: How much $$ is enough?
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 16:40:55 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.203507.15218@unixg.ubc.ca> schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz) writes:

)>The current
)>move to screw the rich man more isn't going to solve the existing social
)>problems.
)
)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)

If that's true, I suppose it's a 'screw everybody' proposal, rather than
just a 'screw the rich' proposal...
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: women, training, && violence
Date: 31 Jul 92 15:58:07 GMT
Reply-To: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <keS126e00WCp03hYgF@andrew.cmu.edu> sc1u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Stephen Chan) writes:
>	Is it really our job to "fix" female behavior? 

	A large part of the thrust of what I see as modern feminism is
that men are bad and need to be controlled:  Make pornography illegal
because it leads men to rape women.  Have curfews for men so that women
can be safe at night.  Make sure men are forced to support the children
they don't want so that women don't have to worry about being able to
support children they might have.  Allow wives to murder their husbands if
they feel that it's necessary.

	One of the most important lessons I've learned is that you can't
hope to control other people.  All you can really do is control yourself.
You can't deal with violence by trying to prevent everyone around you from
being capable of violence.  To this end, I would like to help change
certain people's thinking so that instead of passing laws meant to control
my behavior in case I might do bad things they learned to prevent bad things
from happening by controlling their own lives.
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Dad's aren't Vital.
X-To: CAROL GIBSON
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 18:18:00 GMT

carol@ee.uts.edu.au (Carol Gibson) writes...
CG> I was brought up by my dad. I think mums are non-vital. The only
CG> reason why people think mums are so neccessary is that they saw so
CG> much more of their mums as kids and they can't imagine what the
CG> reverse would have been like. And the only reason they saw so much
CG> more of their mums was because of the patriachal family setup.
                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

On the contrary, I would call the family setup that says that men *have to work*
(outside the home) and should therefore not be allowed to be with their children
until after 5pm is a *matriarchal* family setup that favours *women* and demeans
*men* as care-givers.

Better yet, why don't we just stop squabbling about whether it's a "matriarchal"
or "patriarchal" problem and just acknowledge that its "oppressive," and try
to find a compromise where men and women can both share time at work and with
the kids.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                     "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * If you're having a hallucination, I can come back later.
Xref: sparky soc.men:13878 soc.women:14326 alt.child-support:2304 alt.dads-rights:1654 alt.abortion.inequity:2741
From: root@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick   )
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Right to not support
Date: 31 Jul 92 04:57:53 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon) writes:

> In <nancyo.712373787@sfu.ca> nancyo@fraser.sfu.ca (Nancy Patricia O'Connor) w
> >We live in a society where DNA testing should eliminate this
> >uncertain paternity, and it would thus be (if he is able)
> >in the father's best interest to support his child.
> 
> In the FATHER'S best interest?  What in the world prompts you to make such
> a generalization?  If the father does not want to have any contact with the
> child, then it seems that it would be in anything BUT his best interest to
> support it.
> 

I'm not sure of other locations, but here in Washington, paternity tests
which were made after the 'dad' had begun his support, demonstrated that
the putative father wasn't actually the dad.

It is a wise thing to demand paternity testing. 

---
Bob Kirkpatrick  --  Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA
root@dogear.spk.wa.us           bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us
Newsgroups: soc.men