HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: grey@bnr.ca (Grey)
Subject: Re: Michal - Who should protect your rights?
Reply-To: grey@bnr.ca (Grey)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 18:02:29 GMT

In article <C1826A.2np@cs.psu.edu>, beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
> 
> >I would dearly love to have such public records more easily available.
> >A national computerized database of birth and death records would be a 
> >good start. I don't see that this would violate privacy since such 
> >records are already public -- but it would greatly improve access
> >and simplify record-keeping.  Comments anyone?
> 
> A common misconception is that making "public" records more available
> does not decrease privacy.  Many things that are public remain so
> by virtue of the difficulty of retrieval -- the price of a house,
> the age and number of people in your household, etc.  Nobody objected
> (strongly) to their being public since the easy counterargument was,
> "It's too hard to get that info, anyway."  You really have to re-evaluate
> all sorts of "public" records before you broadcast them.
> 
> And imagine the resulting junk mail.  I find more serious problems with
> the concept of making any "public" information easily accessible,
> but I suggest you look at comp.risks/alt.privacy if you're interested
> in discussing it.

These are serious problems with the concept of accessibility of information.
Before going to the trouble of trying to address whether this sort of
information can be made available in a reasonable and secure manner, do
you agree that improved access satisfies your right to knowledge of your
child, or would you argue that the father must be explicitly notified? If
the latter is the case, there's no point in pursuing the privacy issue further?

Grey

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
grey@bnr.ca			              I think I know enough of hate
greymouser			     	      To say that for destruction ice
my own opinions, not those of my employer     Is also great, and would suffice
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism,soc.singles
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: The Nice Guy Syndrome (was: Re: Male Men Bashers)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 16:23:37 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.040900.20453@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
>>
>>>That's both a good point and a particularly good way of putting it--I'd
>>>suggest that it goes even a little further than that, since most "jerks"
>>>never actually go out of circulation [...] 
>>
>>Such a good point I thought I'd paraphrase it.  The "nice guys" 
>>get happily married and go out of circulation.  The "jerks" are still
>>out there dating.
>
>Or as one of the [few] women I work with put it....
>
>  my women friends think that working at microsoft would be great...
>  men, men, men...and the men/woman ratio [we're in MS-DOS/Windows]
>  is good.  But...the intersection of the set of men who are desirable
>  [in terms of personality, interests, etc] with the set of men who
>  are available is usually null.
>
>  Or, if a man is available...it's usually for cause.

Jen, about your "women friends", are they available "for cause" as well?
Would it not be equally valid to assume that there is something wrong
with most of the available females? Oh, I forgot, you can blame the ex
(the male ex, the female ex is no doubt a victim). When will I learn???
 
>-jen
> [of course, if I didn't label all men in my immediate workgroup 
>  'undesirable, it wouldn't be null in my case. but dating someone
>  in my immediate group might induce insanity. oh well....]


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Xref: sparky soc.men:23168 alt.abortion.inequity:6685 alt.feminism:7562
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 01:53:52 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

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"?
-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Impressive amounts of material can be accreted in this manner.
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.feminism
From: levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine)
Subject: Re: The Nice Guy Syndrome (was: Re: Male Men Bashers)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 19:58:36 GMT

"amy lynn young-leith" <alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu> writes:

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

>Oh puh-lease.  

>Marriage is not something that naturally happens at a certain time in
>life, and to not have it happen is a deviation that means you're sick
>or something.  Yeesh.  Many people simply have more to do than get
>married.  Or they've been married to people who couldn't handle
>relationships well.  Or they're widowed, as you pointed out.  They are
>just as likely to just have had better things to do as they are to be
>somehow inept at personal relationships. 

>amy

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... :-) )
From: alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu (amy lynn young-leith)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Drunk Sex = Rape ? (was Re: Mysogynist
Date: 23 Jan 93 05:41:38 GMT
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington

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. What this amounts to is
>the ability to retroactively rescind consent.

But please remember that not all women think like one that you pick
out to use as an example of what a group may think.  

>This may mean that a perfectly well-meaning male may wake in the morning to
>find out that he's a rapist. As males already have the greater burden
>(culturally and perhaps biologically) for initiating sexual interludes and
>interpreting their partners' responses, this sort of thing obviously makes
>them a little uncomfortable.

I can't understand the flak I've gotten in email about my opinions on
this.  I doubt I'd get this much if I posted that I thought all men
were scum!!  I don't think having sex with someone who consents is
rape just because they are drunk!  The way I look at it, these
charges normally happen because 1)woman gets drunk.  2)Woman ends up
consenting to sex, WILLINGLY has intercourse.  3)Woman wakes up in the
morning and feels bad about what she's done, and foots off the
responsability by trying to call it rape.  This is rediculous.  

Now on the other hand, I think having sex with someone who is
unconscious is rape.  They CANNOT give consent.  Having sex with a
drunk woman who does not give consent is rape.  Where's the problem
here?  *I* did not make the laws which we live under today, and I do
not like them.  Hence I try to change them.  

amy

-- 
alyoung@kiwi.indiana.edu	        	Occupation:  Lifetime Student
*****************************************************************************
*This post was made on personal time and has nothing to do whatsoever with  *
*              the attitudes or opinions of Indiana University.             *
*****************************************************************************
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
From: gds@york.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Male Men Bashers
Originator: gds@york.cs.ucla.edu
Reply-To: gds@cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner)
Organization: in your face!
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 21:11:25 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.014406.26497@adobe.com> kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall) writes:
> Many single-by-choice people will go with friends as "escorts" and
> alleviate some of the single hassles.

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

I don't know.  The guys I knew who had oodles of women dripping off
them were straight as far as I knew.

>>A good % of people I know would make a good partner for someone, but
>>there isn't a compatible someone that they would meet in the general
>>course of their everyday life.
> It's not always easy, but the answer would then be to step outside
> your everyday life and get involved in something new and interesting
> to you.

The people I'm thinking of have full, interesting lives.  They have
interesting jobs and/or graduate research, interesting hobbies, and
good friends.  The only thing they don't have is an SO, because none
of the people who they interact with in their social circles is
compatible in that way.  The only reason they would have to get
involved in something new would be to find an SO, and I couldn't see
that happening (for one thing, they'd have to give up an activity they
really liked).

--gregbo
Xref: sparky soc.men:23034 alt.abortion.inequity:6618 alt.feminism:7463
From: Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Privacy -- and responsibility
Date: 21 Jan 93 14:33:19 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:

>>Well now; consider the case where (b) is the only reason for a woman
>>to have an abortion.  That is, there are no rapes, no congenital
>>defects, no pain or possible medical problems for the mother or
>>child-to-be.  Do you think such a society would make abortion
>>legal or illegal?

>A lovely ideal.  But how does one ensure pain-free pregnancy and birth?

Apologies for being unclear.  Imagine an alternative universe in
which the positions of men and women were identical w.r.t. the
production of a child (clearly we can't get there from here, but
it's an interesting thought experiment).  That is, there would be
no more burden on women than there is right now on men.  The question
is whether such a society would make abortion illegal altogether,
whether it would allow either parent the decision of whether
to abort, or whether it would require joint consent.

If abortion would be illegal, then financial burdens would be
considered an insufficient basis for choosing abortion.  If joint
consent were required for an abortion, then in the case of disagreement
it is possible to argue that the parent wanting the child should
shoulder a greater share of the childcare/financial burden.  If
either parent could cause the abortion, then it would be assumed
that both parents wanted the child, and the burden would be shared
equitably (possibly with time/money tradeoffs).

I would tend towards the belief that such a society would make
abortion illegal, at least if it had ethics comparable to those
of our industrialized world, because it is so controversial at
present, and many of those who support abortion do so only because
of the burden placed on women.  This would suggest that financial
burdens are not considered sufficient reason; which removes the
force behind the movement for men to have (formal) input into the
abortion decision.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk      Computing Lab, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Sometimes when you think the earth moves, it is only an earthquake.
Newsgroups: soc.men,talk.rape
From: karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: Drunk Sex = Rape?
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 23:32:59 GMT
Organization: MCSNet, Chicago, IL

In article <1993Jan23.211814.19939@news.cs.indiana.edu> "amy lynn young-leith" <alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu> writes:
>In article <C1BpFC.A35@cs.mcgill.ca> chuckies@cs.mcgill.ca (Charles J Savoie) writes:
>>In article <16B5EA76A.ALI00BAW@UNCCVM.UNCC.EDU> ALI00BAW@UNCCVM.UNCC.EDU writes:
>>>I don't think that anyone will argue that if a woman is falling-down-drunk
>>>or semiconscious she is still capable of giving consent.
>>I would.  If she drank willingly, and gave clear consent, I would.  Just like
>>she would be responsible for choosing to get into a car and drive.
>
>What if the woman is UNCONSCIOUS.  I believe that the above
>"semiconscious or falling down drunk" is way too lose to even THINK of
>in a legal sense.  Chuckies, what if the woman was *unconscious*.
>Then what? 

You cannot give consent if you are unconscious.

>If she did not give consent, or was in no condition to give
>legal consent (unconscious), and he was too drunk to pay attention to
>her, or didn't really stop to think what she meant, then that's HIS
>problem, for HE'S the one that's allowed himself to get into a state
>where he cannot act responsibly.  It works both ways. 

Yep.  However, being in "no condition to give consent" shouldn't be an
excuse.  If you <gave> consent, and got to the condition you were in through
an act of free will, then that consent should stand.

I agree that if you're unconscious you cannot give consent.  But who wants
to screw an unconscious person?  Is that supposed to be fun?

>I'm not sure just what we're talking about now, but if two people get
>drunk, end up sleeping together, and then wake up the next morning and
>go, "oh god, what did I do..." I think they should be held to their
>irresponsible behavior.  A woman should not be able to use "I
>consented but I was drunk" as grounds for a rape charge, but nor
>should a man be able to say, "Hey, I was drunk, I'm not guilty because
>I was drunk."  

Given.

--
Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900]
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism,alt.dads-rights
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Rights, Burdens, Communication
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:58:59 GMT

In article <1jkuu2INNk68@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) 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.
>
>>Actually, as I understand it, he has no such right, unless he is married.
>
>Not so.  I recently described a case in which an unmarried father was 
>suing to reverse an adoption, several years after the fact, claiming that 
>he had only recently found out about the existance of the child.  The
>mother had claimed another man was the father, and that other man had
>OK'd the adoption.  The case is pending the results of DNA testing to 
>determine which man is the biological father.

It sounds like this might vary from state to state as well. But it also
brings up an interesting point, the mother can lie for whatever reason,
and chances are pretty small that she will be called on it. And as has
been pointed out, she may also be mistaken or unsure. But this issue
is one many have a great emotional investment in, which is why I put
lying as the first option. I have seen revenge at work, as well as
extreme possessivness (personal experience here), and neither is a basis
for open honest discussion. 
 
>                                                --  Michal
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Impressive amounts of material can be accreted in this manner.


Rich

payner@netcom.com



Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Privacy -- and responsibility
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 19:07:42 GMT

In article <1jg5ueINNko7@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>>Well, a woman has a CHOICE over her financial obligation, which she can 
>>exercise for several months after conception. A man has no corresponding 
>>choice. Don't you see the inequity?
>
>But is it any *more* inequitable than giving the man the power to force 
>the woman to abort?  Is it any *more* inequitable that tearing a child 
>away from a parent who wants it?  Is it any *more* inequitable than 
>allowing a child to go without because the NCP doesn't feel like writing
>a check?

What is this "more" inequatable argument. Please explain in enough
detail so that I can figure out what you mean. Just offhand, it sounds
like a personal value judgement to me, not an absolutely quantifiable
state.

And you still refer to pregnancy as if it were a personal decision, like
what to have for lunch. It is not, by a long shot.

>
>                                                --  Michal
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Impressive amounts of material can be accreted in this manner.


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Xref: sparky soc.men:23050 soc.women:22933 talk.abortion:57156
From: 90397106@bradford.ac.uk (JR HAVELOCK)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion
Subject: Life begins at ...
Keywords: Gestation
Date: 21 Jan 93 18:02:22 GMT
Followup-To: Nothing
Organization: University of Bradford, UK
Originator: 90397106@whisky




I am currently writing an article on the stages of gestation. I would appreciate any details/
statistics on this and any ideas (plus reasons) on when life beings. I was interested to note
that a side issue on hormone replacement is that if a fertilised egg is taken from one
woman and placed in another it grows until birth. Thus if the womb is just a nutrient supply
(and the rest) then life must begin at fertilisation. Then again the womb could be seen as the
life giver or perhaps only when the egg has reached a certain stage it is alive. Is an acorn
a tree or only so when the first root appears, or perhaps when the first branch.
 
	Please send any issues or details to :

		J.R.HAVELOCK@bradford.ac.uk

Thanks for your trouble.
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: ALI00BAW@UNCCVM.UNCC.EDU
Subject: Re: masturbation
Organization: UNC Charlotte
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 15:28:28 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.171050.9475@lunatix.uucp>
kwill@lunatix.uucp (Kelvin Williams) writes:
 
>
>
>        Hello fellas.
>
>                I have been wanting to ask a question for some time now so
>here goes.
>
>        A while back I was put into a very weird situation, I popped a
>'woody' (had an erection) at work.  I was called into another room (with a
>woody) on my way a noticed (or my mind was playing tricks on me) that a lot
>more people were staring at my crotch than usual.  What my question is, is
>there a way that any man can masturbate (jack-off) without being seen?  Now
>take into consideration that I work with two more men and a woman in my
>office.  I know that there would be cum in the pants, but I would rather
>have cum than be embarrassed again by a hard-on.
>
>                                        Kelvin
>
>--
>==============================================================================
>        What'd you say?  Backup my harddrive?  But, I can't find the
>                               reverse switch..
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
I don't know what sort of dress code--if any--you have at work, but could
you not make a habit of wearing looser-fitting trousers and/or longish,
bulky cardigans?
 
If this is not practicable, I suggest holding your chin up, eyes foreward,
and pretend that nothing is wrong.  If you look embarassed or self-conscious,
it will make matters worse.
 
 
 
 
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
Xref: sparky soc.men:23216 alt.abortion.inequity:6709 alt.dads-rights:3488
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: adoption rules
Date: 25 Jan 1993 04:08:15 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

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

>peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>Don, I've thought about it alot this weekend.  I've concluded that 
>>the *good* of protecting the father's right to stop an adoption is not
>>worth the *bad* of subjecting the mother and child to the risk of 
>>injury from an abusive father.  Thus I cannot condone a legal 
>>requirement for paternal notification.  

>Fine.  Will you legally permit a father to abduct a child and disappear
>if he knows the mother to be abusive?
>Do you condone a legal requirement to inform a mother where her child is?

Are you claiming that abducting a child is equivalent to a mother 
declining to go out of her way to notify a former sex partner that 
she has borne a child?

-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Impressive amounts of material can be accreted in this manner.