HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: Privacy -- and responsibility
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 03:42:37 GMT
Organization: MCSNet, Chicago, IL

In article <30452@optima.cs.arizona.edu> bweiss@cs.arizona.edu (Beth Weiss) writes:
>Karl Denninger writes:
>|> Not true.  She made the decision to marry OF HER OWN FREE WILL.  The other
>|> party is not responsible for what she could have had as a career had she
>|> chosen to continue it (note that marriage does NOT mean you must stop
>|> working if you're a woman, only that it is convenient to do so if you can
>|> sap off a man instead).  In fact, it could be argued that the man is owed
>|> instead if the woman decided at marriage not to work -- the man was deprived
>|> of some substantial portion of his funds as a result (he had to support
>|> her)
>|> 
>|> Neither is it relavent what her standard of living would be if she had
>|> stayed married if the majority of the support during the marriage came 
>|> from the man.  Again, the choice to not work and continue her carrer was
>|> <hers>.
>
>In most cases, isn't it _THEIRS_, rather than hers?  For
>example, he gets a great job offer, so she gives up her job
>and follows him to where his new job is because they think
>it's best for their family.
>
>Another example: he quits work for a few years, and goes back
>to school, while she supports them, because it's best for
>their family.
>
>Another: she quits work (or cuts back) to stay home more with
>the children, because they think it's best for their family. 
>[this one could be that he quits work, of course]
>
>When one member of a married couple makes a career decision,
>it's made in the context of their marriage, not in a vacuum,
>and presumably with the input of the spouse.  That means it
>is made with the assumption that the marriage will continue. 
>Isn't that part of the basis for the community property
>laws in some states: financial choices made by spouses are
>made together--and both are contributing to the assets of the
>marriage.

You presume much.

Further, when such a decision is made, and then the marriage ends, <both>
spouses are impacted negatively.  Therefore, this is also a specious
argument for increased support.

You also ignore the case where a husband would <prefer> not to have a
parasitical relationship (both partners working) yet the woman refuses to go
out and practice her skills in the marketplace.  It happens (trust me;
first-hand experience here).

--
Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900]
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.dads-rights
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: adoption rules
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 14:32:09 GMT

peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>
>>A mother +should+ be hindered from placing a child for adoption
>>if a father has not been "identified." 
>
>What about births resulting from rape?  This is really adding insult
>to injury!

More diversions, Michal?

If it is so, she should have chosen an abortion.  If she decided to have
the child, then the child exists.  And, to paraphrase your style of
argument, once the child exists, it has a right to its parents.  Both
of them, whether in jail or out.  "Insult to injury" of the *mother* is
not an overriding force for the child's interests.

If she thinks the alleged rapist will harm the child, she can say so -- 
and a judge will decide.


But I suppose you will propose a law that states ALL convicted rapists 
MUST lose ALL their children forever, whereas convicted child-abusing women
and convicted murderesses can have a second chance.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.dads-rights
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: adoption rules
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 20:49:40 GMT

peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>rlt@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (r l taylor) writes:
>
>>In article <1jhkgsINN7sn@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>
>>>A man has a right to stop his child from being given up for adoption.
>
>>How much time is/should be allowed between the birth of the child, and
>>the adoption
>
>in CA, 6 months.

Okay, Michal, you have 6 months to find *either* Rich Payne's
birth certificate or my son's birth certificate.  Otherwise I
claim the right to adopt your first child against your wishes.

Ready, set, go!

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
From: karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: Privacy -- and responsibility
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 20:52:36 GMT
Organization: MCSNet, Chicago, IL

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.

--
Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900]
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: gds@york.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Nice Guy's and the women who dump them
Originator: gds@york.cs.ucla.edu
Reply-To: gds@cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner)
Organization: in your face!
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 21:01:27 GMT

In article <25401@galaxy.ucr.edu> starbuck@galaxy.ucr.edu (starbuck) writes:
>Take a guy like Elvis.  Now there was a man who knew how to move.  Women
>would go emotionally balistic over him.  Film and tape of his performences
>show women fainting, panting and basicly letting go in the most emotional
>way possible.  What did the King have that I and other men don't have?

For one thing, he had movie producers who were willing to pay lots of
money to women who acted like they wanted to tear his clothes off.  We
have no way of knowing how they would have reacted if Elvis had not
been the big entertainment phenomenon he was, and instead had just
stuck to playing guitar and singing in small clubs.
Xref: sparky soc.men:23170 alt.abortion.inequity:6688 alt.feminism:7564
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Privacy -- and responsibility
Date: 24 Jan 1993 02:05:55 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

>How does cunnilingus prevent pregnancy, then?

Don, I'll explain when you're a little older.	:-)

-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Impressive amounts of material can be accreted in this manner.
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu (Eric Forbis )
Subject: New group proposals status?
Organization: University of Minnesota
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 07:38:19 GMT

A month or two ago someone (Dave Gross?) noted the activity of this 
newsgroup and suggested expanding the hierarchy of this group. I don't 
recall seeing much else here since then, and my latest excursions into 
news.announce.newgroups or news.config haven't revealed any active 
proposals. Is anyone familiar with the status of these proposals? 
I'd like to see the process get underway.

---------

Eric Forbis      forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.dads-rights
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: adoption rules
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 20:47:40 GMT

peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>rlt@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (r l taylor) writes:
>
>><1jhkgsINN7sn@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>
>>>A man has a right to stop his child from being given up for adoption.

>>Likewise, does the child have a right to a relationship with both parents?
>>If so, why should the mother be allowed to deny this relationship by keeping
>>(or attempting to keep) the father uninformed of the child's existence?
>
>IMO that is a terriffic ideal.  But there are some cases where this is
>not appropriate.  Such as where one parent is potentially abusive or
>otherwise harmful.


Yes, but what makes you feel that the mother should have the sole
right to make such a judgement?

If a child were one week old and the father *knew* the mother was abusive,
would it be right for him to take the child and disappear and never
permit the mother to see the child again -- or even to arrange an adoption
without her permission or knowledge?

By proposing that mothers can give children up for adoption without
permitting the father to be notified, you imply that it is alright
for the *mother* to take such action.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
From: kamchar@ibm.cl.msu.edu (SunCat)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Deep Thoughts?
Date: 26 Jan 93 02:20:18 GMT
Organization: Michigan State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: isnext15.cl.msu.edu

In article <Jan.20.17.24.56.1993.379@net.bio.net> charleen@net.bio.net  
(Charleen Bunjiovianna) writes:
> In article <1jfhnvINNf7l@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> kamchar@ibm.cl.msu.edu  
(SunCat) writes:
> >In article <1993Jan15.143757.17151@walter.cray.com> jsw@cray.com (Jon  
S.  
> >Wood) writes:
> >[...]
> >>   It's a CRIME that women should have so many more options regarding
> >> parenthood, abortion, adoption and or custody and not one of the  
options
> >> contains her wallet.
> >
> >Power and responsibility must go together.  Otherwise there is  
injustice.
> 
> It's surprising, though gratifying, to see you agree with Jon.
> 
> So, how are we going to see to it that women don't shirk the  
responsibility
> that comes with the power they have?  How do we rectify the injustices  
brought
> about by women abusing their power?
> 
> Charleen
Hmm.  That's a tough one.  The stuff of many threads--most of which belong  
in alt.abortion.inequity .  I suppose we could put a stop to "I decide but  
you pay"  but what of the cases already decided?  Seems our society thinks  
that women should be baby machines and men should be labor machines.   
While I think that the practice of reducing men to military-industrial  
robots could be solved with advanced robotics in production (just my crank  
economic theory) women would receive divident income too (under James S.  
Albus's plan.  See _Peoples' Capitalism:  the Economics of the Robot  
Revolution_).  So why would they need a man to economicly support their  
decision with cash?

A lawyer fellow emailed me re: *cesant rationi* and torts.  In other words  
if a law no longer has a reason it doesn't hold & if someone hurts you you  
can sue. 

In article 80K@world.std.com, aep@world.std.com (Andrew E Page) writes:
>
>   According to a good friend's girlfriend:
>
>It's a CRIME that it is easier for some "men" to give a woman a child
>than it is to give her an orgasm.  One can happen by mistake, but the
>other requires only fifteen seconds more thought, just a little more
>effort, and just slightly more heart. 

Yeah but which takes a mistake and which requires thought and heart?
:-)

=========SunCat++++     | kamchar@ibm.cl.msu.edu
"Practice Random Kindness and Senseless Acts of Beauty"
--Anne Herbert
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
From: ALI00BAW@UNCCVM.UNCC.EDU
Subject: Re: Drunk Sex = Rape ? (was Re: Mysogynist Bullshit)
Organization: UNC Charlotte
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 14:15:59 GMT

>>. . . . .that she will make a false accusition of rape. . .
>
>The first thing they do in a rape trial is ascertain on the basis
 of physical evidence whether intercourse  took place between the two people.
 
What if she waits several days (or even weeks, months) before coming forth with
the accusation?  No physical evidence would then be left.  The D.A. might
in such a case decide that there is not enough evidence to prosecute, but the
charges having been made would be more than enough to damage the man's
 
 
 
Another Rust-Belt Yankee Exile in Charlotte!
 
Any opinions expressed are mine, not those of the Atkins Library.
 
Bruce Alan Wilson ali00baw@unccvm.uncc.edu
reputation.
 
Query to any lawyers out there: would, in the situation outlined above, the
man be able to sue for libel or slander?
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Gender Discrimination
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 02:58:07 GMT

lisa@zeppelin.llnl.gov (Lisa Corsetti) writes:
><C1Ex0o.3Lt@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>
> [...]  stuff deleted about only considering a woman for the job of
> attourney general...
>
>>   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. 
>
>How does it feel?

Like a backlash(tm).

And now I feel more secure that feminists are for equality and above revenge.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Xref: sparky soc.men:23194 alt.abortion.inequity:6703 alt.feminism:7585
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Privacy -- and responsibility
Date: 24 Jan 93 15:24:28 GMT
Organization: Penn State Computer Science

peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>
>>peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>>
>>>>Men have sex, flee the scene, come back for a few privileges,
>>>>then skip out.  They have no obligations.  Women who use no
>>>>birth control and then have abortions are bearing responsibilities;
>>>>men who use birth control which fails are "responsibility-free."
>>>
>>>Yes, that is a big part of my argument as pertains to the case where
>>>no child is born.  If a child *is* born it gets more complicated
>>>that that because one must consider the rights of the child to be 
>>>cared for and supported.
>
>>I am speechless in the face of such unabashed sexism.  At least
>>it's better than hypocritical sexism.  All IMO.
>
>Don, would you like to explain to me exactly what it is about 
>my statement that you consider "unabashed sexism"?

If you can't see it, I would just be wasting my time.  Sorry,

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Xref: sparky soc.men:23167 alt.abortion.inequity:6683 alt.dads-rights:3475
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: adoption rules
Date: 24 Jan 1993 01:46:04 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

>A mother +should+ be hindered from placing a child for adoption
>if a father has not been "identified." 

What about births resulting from rape?  This is really adding insult
to injury!

-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Impressive amounts of material can be accreted in this manner.
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
From: ematz@world.std.com (Ed Matz)
Subject: Re: Gender Discrimination
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 03:47:56 GMT

In article <C1Ex0o.3Lt@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>   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

Hmmm . . . there seems to have been a lot of sexism at work in the 
Zoe Baird fiasco.   Some feminists have pointed out the double-standard
in simply asking Baird about her hiring the illegal aliens.   But one
feminist has observed (on NPR, no less!) another double-standard at
work: the Judiciariy committee, on hearing her explanation (a mother 
struggling with child-care issues) seemed to say, "A mother, struggling
with child-care issues? that's okay: no problem!"

Any guesses what their reaction would be if a man had said, "I was thinking
more as a father than as a potential cabinet member"?

Ed Matz		ematz@world.std.com


Xref: sparky soc.men:23448 soc.singles:38434 alt.feminism:7736
From: intensit@netlink.cts.com (Michael J. Callahan)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: The Nice Guy Syndrome (was: Re: Male Men Bashers)
Date: 28 Jan 93 06:30:39 GMT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
> Let me also point out that there are certain parts of the country in
> which an older woman is essentially unmarriageable, unless she has
> an extremely valued physical appearance. I base this conclusion on
> knowing, in two such geographical areas, middle-aged women who are
> handsome (although not *standardly* beautiful), personable,
> socially skilled, intelligent, well-groomed (all these good things) --
> and yet appear to have resigned themselves, unwillingly, to singleness.
> 
> (To paraphrase Horace Greeley, go West... :-) )

  Excuse me.  Could you please tell me where?

--                    
INTERNET:  intensit@netlink.cts.com (Michael J. Callahan)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!intensit
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
From: eisrael@klingon.East.Sun.COM (Elias Israel - SunSelect Engineering)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Drunk Sex = Rape?
Date: 22 Jan 1993 15:20:11 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: eisrael@klingon.East.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: klingon.east.sun.com

In article HEz@hplntx.hpl.hp.com, albert@hpl.hp.com (Joseph Albert) writes:
>In article <1jjru2INN3kb@seven-up.East.Sun.COM> eisrael@klingon.East.Sun.COM writes:
>>The problem is that this isn't always a safe bet. I've heard more than one
>>"authority" on rape (including the head of the Women's Rape Counseling Center
>>in D.C., whose name unfortunately escapes me) claim that a woman who realizes
>>in the morning that she probably didn't want to have sex (or wouldn't have if
>>she'd thought about it some more) has been raped.
>
>One reason the name may escape you is that there is no such thing as the
>"Women's Rape Counseling Center" in D.C.  Yes, I know it sounds good to
>appeal to the ultimate spokesperson of those you wish to discredit, but
>a little more accuracy is called for.  Your claims are simply not credible.
>Any authority on rape will tell you that if a woman is too drunk to have
>been able to give consent (eg passed out) then perpetrating intercourse
>on her body is rape.

Hey, I refuse to participate in a flame war. I was just reporting from memory
on things I'd seen. If you don't find my statement credible, well, that's for
you to work out; I've got more pressing concerns. If I got the name of the
woman's organization wrong as well as having forgotten her name, I apologize.
I saw her make the statement on television about a year ago (co-incident with
the Thomas/Hill tumult). I believe I also have an interview with her in one
of the periodicals I read, so I may be able to find a reference, if anyone cares.

And I don't think you read my posting carefully. I didn't say that men shouldn't
require consent from women too inebriated to give it. I said that some people
interpret the apparent consent of a women before the sex act to be conditional
on what she thinks about it afterward. And I wasn't trying to descredit anyone.
My only point was that even in situations where a man tries to interpret a woman's
desires and thinks that he's operating in a regime of mutual consent, he can
suddenly find that some people would interpret his actions in a much more
sinister light. I brought this up only because many people (most of them women,
but not all of them) make light of or don't understand the risks that
(perfectly ethical) men assume in this area.

Now, a better response to my posting would be to point out that if the path of
righteousness was easy, everyone could do it. I would be forced to agree that
just because ethical behaviour can be difficult or risky doesn't mean we have
any smaller obligation to be ethical. However, I would also caution that
erecting barriers to ethical behaviour won't exactly encourage its greater
currency.

Elias Israel
eisrael@east.sun.com

Newsgroups: soc.men
From: edm@gocart.twisto.compaq.com (Ed McCreary)
Subject: Re: Drunk Sex = Rape ? (was Re: Mysogynist Bullshit)
Organization: Compaq Computer Corp
	<93019.141055U53644@uicvm.uic.edu>
	<1993Jan19.205938.7956@news.cs.indiana.edu> <C15p04.BDz@ddsw1.mcs.com>
	<1jl2moINNlq3@gap.caltech.edu>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 21:07:38 GMT

>>>>> On 21 Jan 1993 02:44:40 GMT, peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) said:
MLP> Karl brings up an interesting question.  Suppose a person (let's remove 
MLP> gender, and just talk about drunkenness) goes to a restaurant and gives
MLP> the key to the valet, then gets drunk, then gets the key back from the
MLP> valet, drives, and gets in a traffic accident.  Is the restaurant 
MLP> liable?

I don't know if it's law, but there have been several cases where the
victim of a drunk-driver successfully sued the restaurant or bar they
were drinking. (In Texas that is, I'm not sure about other states.)
--
Ed McCreary                                               ,__o
edm@gocart.eng.hou.compaq.com                           _-\_<,
"If it were not for laughter, there would be no Tao."  (*)/'(*)
Xref: sparky soc.men:23162 misc.kids:33284 alt.parents-teens:1407
From: pepke@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Male Men Bashers
Date: 21 Jan 93 22:05:06 GMT
Reply-To: pepke@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Organization: Florida State University, but I don't speak for them

In article <1993Jan21.154913.15976@aston.ac.uk> evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans) writes:
>> (I write a description of "nice guy syndrome.")
>An assumption here that everone wants a long term partner..

I am making no such assumption; I am merely describing a particular message
about percieved causal relationships.

-EMP
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: A modest proposal
Date: 21 Jan 93 15:41:59 GMT
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <1993Jan20.204854.6319@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>No, it wouldn't. As practically every feminist will tell you, there
>is NO proof that hormones have anything to do with behavior. All       

	There's no proof that *female* hormones have anything to do with behavior.
It's obvious that *male* hormones turn an otherwise civilized human being into a
violent, lust-crazed, uncontrollable beer-swilling spouse-beating child abuser.

	Get with the program, pal.
									W.rat



Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.dads-rights