HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bweiss@cs.arizona.edu (Beth Weiss)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: adoption rules
Date: 25 Jan 93 18:22:35 GMT
Followup-To: soc.men
Distribution: na
Organization: U of Arizona, CS Dept, Tucson

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.  

I can support a requirement for paternal notification.  I'm not sure
what to do in those cases where the mother doesn't know (or claims
she doesn't know) who the father is, though.

Scenario: Woman has baby she knows she can't support, and wishes to
give up for adoption.  She claims she doesn't know who the father
is.  

Now what?   

Options:
1) refuse to allow Mom to give up Baby, even though she doesn't want
the baby, and that would make her (I would think) more likely to
abuse the child

2) Force her to list all possible fathers and contact them all to
see what they want to do.  If a possible father wants custody if the
child is his, then do DNA tests to see if he's really the father. 
If all possibles don't care if the child is put for adoption, then
there's no problem.

3) Figure that if she doesn't know, whoever she names would likely
be uninterested/disbelieving that they were the father.

#1 seems as if it would leave to child abuse.  #2 sounds fairest to
me.   #3 doesn't give men enough credit for decency.

What other ideas?

--Beth Weiss
bweiss@cs.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: glen@slate.cs.wisc.edu (Glen Ecklund)
Subject: Re: Men bonding with their Children.
Organization: U of Wisconsin Madison - Computer Sciences
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 19:35:59 GMT

starbuck@galaxy.ucr.edu (starbuck) writes:

>The greatest myth of the feminist is that the women 
>nuture by default and men, well we all know how they feel
>about men.  What is overlooked is the fact that men nuture
>and bond with others especially with their children.  

As a feminist man, I'm glad that you have a good relationship with your
daughter.  But please get rid of the incorrect and hurtful stereotype
of feminists.  Feminists desire, expect, and appreciate equality of women
and men.
Of course, there will always be feminists who are ill-informed, or angry,
or whatever, just as there are ill-informed and angry people of any political
persuasion.  I'm sorry if those are the only feminists you know.

My personal experience:  My wife is the Executive Director of Wisconsin NOW
(National Organization for Women).  We have a 2.5 year old son.  I always 
feel welcome at NOW functions, and I have no sense that feminists overlook
my nurturing of or bonding with my son.
It's not the feminists who say I'm "babysitting" when I go out with my son.

-- 
--
Every child shall be treated with complete respect.

Glen Ecklund     glen@cs.wisc.edu   (608) 262-1318 Office, 262-1204 Dept. Sec'y
Department of Computer Sciences        1210 W. Dayton St., Room 3355
University of Wisconsin, Madison       Madison, Wis. 53706  U.S.A.
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.dads-rights
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: adoption rules
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 05:04:12 GMT

peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>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?

I'm asking you a question, and waiting for an answer.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Male Men Bashers
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 13:22:01 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <11788@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> pepke@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke) writes:
>The reason I set the followups the way I did is that I want to talk about
>the message that men get.  The message is this:
>
>1) If you're a self-centered jerk, you'll get plenty of dates.
>2) It you're a nice, sensitive guy, you may at some time acquire a long-term
>   partner who may or may not stop dating self-centered jerks.  In the mean
>   time, you might as well watch Popeye cartoons to see what your forearms
>   are going to look like.
>
>This is generally called the "nice guy syndrome."

   Where did you get this message?   Who gave it to you?
   Why did you believe/internalize it?   

   I'm not denying that this message exists, but it's only one of
   an enormous number of "messages" out there; I never personally 
   found it to be either persuasive or pervasive.    We're bombarded
   with "messages" all day and it's up to us as allegedly rational
   creatures to sort through these things and make choices.  And
   anyway, ultimately our choices are our personal responsibility.
   Blaming the "messages" we get is another instance of blaming 
   "society" for our OWN choices.


---peter



Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism,soc.singles
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Privacy -- and responsibility
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 20:09:46 GMT


peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:

> ... I know well that many men enjoy being 
>parents and many more would cherish a greater role in their children's 
>lives.  (Not just NCPs either -- alot of CPs and married folks would 
>dearly love to have more time to spend with their children!) However 
>some men are more concerned with their pocketbooks than with their
>kids.  Alas this is also true of some women.

Apparently, you would NOT include those women who abort because
they can't afford a child?


>The law must be written to keep the scoundrels in line.  Scoundrels of
>*both* genders.

Is a woman who aborts because her pocketbook said she couldn't afford
a child a scoundrel?  Do you advocate outlawing such abortion?

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Xref: sparky soc.men:23165 alt.abortion.inequity:6681 alt.dads-rights:3473
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Don's interesting proposition
Date: 24 Jan 1993 01:36:33 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:
>>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>An interesting proposition.  What if it is against my husband's 
>>wishes?

>Both of you can look.

For someone who claims to be a proponent of "male choice" you 
seem pretty willing to waive away my husband's claim to his (future)
child.  Just thought I'd point out your hypocracy.

-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Impressive amounts of material can be accreted in this manner.
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: SHe ain't responsible
Date: 26 Jan 93 18:09:10 GMT
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <1993Jan26.104822.15402@news.cs.indiana.edu> alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu (amy lynn young-leith) writes:
>A woman, when drinking, renders herself totally incapacitated in the
>eyes of the law and has no capacity to make decisions that she should
>then be held responsible for.  

	It'd be interesting to see if she could get out of a written
contract by claiming she'd drunk 2 martinis while eating lunch.   "Oooo,
that Big Evil Patriarchal Finance Company is Taking Advantage of meeeee!"

								wr
Newsgroups: soc.men,talk.rape
From: "amy lynn young-leith" <alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Drunk Sex = Rape?
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 10:48:13 -0500

In article <012593110444dude@losers.hacktic.nl> dude@losers.hacktic.nl (Dude) writes:
>True, but taking advantage of someone when he/she is drunk something else..
>When a man is drunk, and I take his money, it's a crime. When a woman gets
>drunk, and I rape her, it's a crime.

But as someone else said, if that person, in their drunken state,
hands you their wallet and says, "Take it" without threat or coercion,
then it's their own stupidity, and they are responsible for it! 

>There's a difference between raping someone and sleeping with someone..

Let's clarify here... Do you agree or disagree with the following:

Having sex with someone who consents is not rape. 
Having sex with someone who consents and has been drinking is not
rape.  
Forcing someone who has not been drinking to have sex is rape. 
Forcing someone who has been drinking to have sex is rape.
Having sex with someone who is unconscious is rape. 
A woman, when drinking, renders herself totally incapacitated in the
eyes of the law and has no capacity to make decisions that she should
then be held responsible for.  

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.             *
*****************************************************************************
From: bouche2@server.uwindsor.ca (BOUCHER DAVID            )
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Are false accusations harmless? (WAS Re: Drunk Sex = Rape?
Date: 28 Jan 1993 17:28:03 GMT
Organization: University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada

In article <C1JAzF.BoC@hplntx.hpl.hp.com> albert@hpl.hp.com (Joseph Albert) writes:
>In article <2524@newsserver.cs.uwindsor.ca> bouche2@server.uwindsor.ca (BOUCHER DAVID            ) writes:
>>
>>> [....]     i happen to believe that william kennedy
>>>smith was guilty of rape.
>>
>>WHY do you believe that?
>
>i believe this because I believe that the picture of a woman's body with
>broken ribs, and black and blue marks was were indeed taken of smith's
>accuser. 

Could you please cite some article or reference in which these photos
are described?  I followed this case on television and I do not recall
any mention of broken ribs.  Also, since broken bones should be visible 
on medical x-rays even after they have healed, I am wondering why
the accuser didn't submit medical x-rays to prove her claim.

-db




Xref: sparky soc.men:23048 soc.women:22931 soc.singles:37351 alt.feminism:7472
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,soc.singles,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Duck and Jive (was Re: Pre-Sex Contract)
Date: 21 Jan 93 17:43:49 GMT
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: The Immoral Minority

In article <C17MJK.ADA@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:

>You will also find that raising children is a lot of work.  

*IF* you do it right.

Like always, Gordon's implicit assumption (that the welfare mothers
raise their kids in a good way) is the important one...

>Women with access to
>contraception and abortion almost never have large numbers of
>children; those who do are almost always in a patriarchal
>situation -- e.g. various fundamentalist religious types who
>believe that it's the Godly thing to do.  

So how comes that liberals states like New York or Massachusetts
have a much more serious welfare problem than more fundamentalist
and religious states like those in the South East or in Utah?

Can't you see that the facts contradict your theory?

>In Ashmore's _dumb_ story, the fecund momma has none of this.
>No support, no ideology.  

1) In Carole's story the woman who kept having children had 
   some religious reasons.

2) It is true that quite a few women follow the patriarchal religions
   that object to abortion, but there are also goddess based religions
   that see child bearing/raising as a good thing...

>It's _possible_ that a few such 
>situations could arise, but they'd be socially insignificant,
>not the gigantic problem Hillel makes them out to be.

The problem is that y'all created a fool-proof environment for poor
people, and in this environment a large number of people who take
no responsibility are raised.

The welfare queen is just one example, the people who burned down
every store around their neighborhoods are another.

Today 1/4 of the children in the U.S. are born to poverty; is this
a gigantic problems by your criteria?  Is the problem of people who
keep having children they can't support, and bill the government
for them, has any significance?

>I don't know where you've been.  I think I've seen at least
>four editions.  I hope Carole is getting royalties.

I asked for Carole's permission to post the story to other groups.

> )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(

Hillel                                  gazit@cs.duke.edu

"Personally, I don't think raising a child as a single parent
is much of a burden." -- James G Keegan Jr
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: in droves?
Date: 26 Jan 93 20:29:14 GMT
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <C1H4KF.BL3@hplntx.hpl.hp.com> albert@hpl.hp.com (Joseph Albert) writes:
>actual rapists are acquitted in droves.  

	I'm curious:  how do you know this?  I mean, do hundreds of these people
come up to you and tell you that they really did it but they didn't get 
convicted?
									wr
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.dads-rights
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Can Michal Put Her Money Where Her Mouth Is?
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 13:55:43 GMT

pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek) writes:
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>
>>>By the way, does "hippocracy" mean government by the hippopotami?  Is
>>>there a hidden message here? :-)
>
>>I was referring to hippocratic principles.
>
>>Rule by horses seems more appropriate to the 19th century midwest --
>>although given the Elephant and Donkey parties' treatment of principles
>>like sexual equality, perhaps a Horse will make a suitable alternative.
>
>"Hippo-" means "horse", and "-cracy" is commonly used as a suffix for
>various forms of leadership.  Does "hippocracy" by any chance translate
>as "high horse"?  I are an Engineer; I never learned any of this humanities
>stuff.

Well, "high horse" is probably suitable, but "-cracy" comes from
strength and power -- so "horsepower" may be the most accurate definition.
Which itself leads to new meanings for autocracy (strictly a 20th-century 
phenomenon) but fortunately away from plutocracy (rule by Disney creatures).

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Xref: sparky soc.men:23441 soc.women:23187 alt.feminism:7730
From: galt%peruvian.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Greg Alt)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: What feminists believe (was: Re: Male Men Bashers)
Date: 28 Jan 93 08:22:08 GMT
Followup-To: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
Organization: University of Utah Computer Science

In article <1993Jan27.161733.18089@llyene.jpl.nasa.gov> julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas) writes:
>I'm beginning to believe this conversation is less about women
>and more about the morality/immorality of the draft.  I'll admit
>I'm one of "those old people" (by 4 years using your figure of 
>26) so I'm not eligable.  But I felt exactly the same way 4
>(and more) years ago.

I'm sure that you can see the hypocrisy in a 30 year old women
saying that 19-26 year old women (the ages for the current draft
law) should be drafted so that women as a whole aren't put down
for being 'wimps'.
 
>GA>How is this different from saying that since women are going to be
>GA>raped anyway, we might as well have the men raped too so that they
>GA>don't get "better" treatment.
>GA>
>GA>Personally, I would much rather be raped than drafted.  
>
>Your choice.  I'd much rather be drafted.

That reminds me...  There is nothing stopping you from filling out
a Selective Service registration card.  You can pick one up next
time you are at the post office.

Of course, I got a letter in the mail telling me I would go to prison
for 5 years if I didn't sign it.  But you will never have to worry 
about that, they would only draft 30 year olds after they've killed
off the younger ones. 

>GA>And as with rape, the problem with the draft is not that joining
>GA>the army is evil, but that being forced to do it is. 
>
>Your opinion.  I feel that a draft is not evil.  If you want
>to yell at me further that I'm "an old person who likes to
>see young people be killed" or that "my life is mostly over"
>go ahead, but let's stop discussing it as a woman's issue when 
>it's really a draft issue.  But if you just want to let hatred 
>wash onto me because I support the possibility of a draft, then 
>send it to /dev/null.  (I certainly didn't call *you* names about
>your beliefs on the draft nor will I start now.)

You have no reason to be very angry at me for my views on the
draft.  I am very pissed that the government might try to get me
killed in a war that I find morally wrong, and I am angry at you
for suggesting that the way to solve the inequality is to have
my girlfriend to war also.  

Just as I would do anything to prevent her from being raped, I 
would do anything to keep her from being drafted.  And I guess 
you also wouldn't have any ethical problems with throwing us in 
prison.

I imagine that if I started saying that sometimes rape is a good
thing for women, you would (rightfully) get angry at me.
----
Join the Greg Alt boycott! Put /galt/h :j in your killfile today!
----
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
From: kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall)
Subject: Re: Male Men Bashers
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 07:34:22 GMT

In article <ATAYLOR.93Jan22144034@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
><In article <1993Jan21.222612.6430@adobe.com> kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall) writes:
>
><1) If you're a self-centered jerk, you'll get plenty of dates but no
><   relationships.
>
>	Hmmmm...probably true, although I've known quite a few
>	people who were involved with a self-centered jerk for
>	some years...is that a "relationship"?

 In -some- sense of the word, yes.  For one particular woman, in one
 particular relationship, he might relate to her differently than to the
 rest of the world and his self-centeredness is not a problem.  As you
 note at the end of the post, it really is impossible to generalize, but
 generalizations do make it easier to communicate.

><2) If you're an honest, caring person (oops, I changed the wording!), you
><   will most likely find a life-long companion if you turn your attention
><   away from the low-self-esteem women who are still looking toward the
><   self-centered jerks.  
>
>	Hmmm. Why, then, do so many women who are assertive,
>	presumably "high esteem" still complain both on and
>	off the net about how "all men are jerks"?

 Assertive definitely is not synonymous with "high esteem".  Assertiveness
 -can- be a coverup for insecurity.  Who knows?

><Thanks to the women's movement 8-> more women
><care about their own happiness and quality of life and do not resign
><themselves to the hanging-onto-the-first-jerk-they-find-because-they-are
><afraid-they'd-never-find-anyone-else-and-they-are-nothing-without-a-man
><syndrome.
>
>	I guess that Simoine Beauvoir (sic) wasn't part of the 
>	"women's movement", by this standard...

 I'm ignorant, I can't parse the above into something meaningful.

>
>	I'm afraid it's a bit more complicated than that, Kendall...

 Always.


Xref: sparky soc.men:23016 talk.rape:3090
From: pepke@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Newsgroups: soc.men,talk.rape
Subject: Re: Drunk Sex = Rape ? (was Re: Mysogynist Bullshit)
Date: 21 Jan 93 02:33:06 GMT
Reply-To: pepke@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Followup-To: talk.rape
Organization: Florida State University

Check followups.

In article <1993Jan20.213527.7208@aston.ac.uk> evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans) writes:
>
>Well I think you will find that rape has its origins as a property, rather
>than a personal crime.

I have seen this claim many dozens of times.  I have seen cogent 
substantiations that did not reduce to handwaving exactly zero times.  I have
asked for substantiations on the network four or five times.  Perhaps you can
provide one for the very first time.

-EMP
Xref: sparky soc.men:23198 alt.abortion.inequity:6706 alt.feminism:7593
From: karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Privacy -- and responsibility
Date: 24 Jan 93 16:13:52 GMT
Organization: MCSNet, Chicago, IL

In article <1jnklfINNl1v@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>
>>In article <1jkhsiINNese@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>>
>>>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.
>
>No, actually the salient question would be: how does her post-divorce
>standard of living compare to (1) what her standard of living would
>be in the present if she had never married; and (2) what her standard
>of living would be in the present if she had stayed married.

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>.

>Unfortunately, as with most "what-if"s, the answers to this question
>is impossible to ascertain.		^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

So therefore you advocate "for the good of the woman" that her standard of
living be maintained at the pre-divorce state.

Are least you are consistent.  Advocating that women get the best deal
regardless of what that does to men, and regardless of whether you have any
solid evidence that it is a fair assessment to make.

--
Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900]
Newsgroups: soc.men