HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician)
Subject: Re: Some Politically Incorrect questions
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 10:30:00 GMT
Organization: Society for the Preservation of E. coli
Distribution: na

In article <stricher-150892235343@stayman.ocean.fsu.edu> stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul) writes:
>In article <1992Aug15.182203.4092@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>, (kamchar@ibm.cl.msu.edu (SunCat)) wrote:
>> I could be fairly sure that I would receive no protection in case of 
>> divorce.  The law grew out of the simplistic predudices of an 
>> earlier, fictive age--Jerry Falwell's.  

>Oh, Idunno. There's always the cause of Joan Lunden of ABC's _Good Morning
>America_. She's been ordered to pay alimony. I forget what the rate is,
>pretty high, something like $20k per month. But what does she make? 10
>times that?

Yes...but she has harped about it.

Obviously, she must be trying to oppress her husband if she can't
handle supporting him when he needs it.

Whoops!  "Oppress her husband"?  Impossible!

(For those who can't tell that there is some humour in the above, I
point out that she may, indeed, be paying what I might consider an
"exorbitant" amount in alimony.  My feelings on alimony is that it
should be based not only on what the payer makes, but also on what the
payee needs.  If Ms. Lunden is making as much money as I think she is,
I don't think she should be forced to pay a formulaic amount since
that would be, in my estimation, far beyond what her ex might need.
However, if a man even considers an attempt to get his alimony
payments reduced, he is often seen by certain segments of the popular
culture as "an oppressive male out to destroy his ex.")

-- 
Brian Evans                |     "Bad mood, bad mood...Sure I'm in a bad mood!
bevans@carina.unm.edu      |      I haven't had sex...*EVER!*" -- Virgin Mary
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: mandatory service
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 21:59:11 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.185228.9476@ads.com> charleen@ADS.COM
(Charleen Bunjiovianna) writes:
>In article <4050@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us> shomer@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us writes:
>>
>>Men have plenty of 
>>privilege; why should we resent one of the few that women have?
>
>Please name three privileges you have by virtue of being born male,
>that I don't have because I was born female.

Well, I can (in theory) join a millitary combat group.  And I can ...
er... uh... let's start over.

I can join a combat group in the Army.  I can join a combat group in
the Navy.  I can join a combat group in the Air Force.   There, that's
three.

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Xref: sparky soc.men:15258 soc.women:15528 alt.child-support:2815 alt.dads-rights:2035
From: jrr@nsc.nsc.com (Jerry Roe)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: It isn't slavery
Date: 20 Aug 92 17:22:20 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: National Semiconductor, Santa Clara

In article <1992Aug19.115629.14899@ll.mit.edu> yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) writes:
>In article <1992Aug18.183755.19136@nsc.nsc.com> jrr@nsc.nsc.com (Jerry Roe) writes:
...
>>Rather than suggesting in any way that children should not be supported
>>by their parents (of whatever marital status) at decent levels, this is a
>>not-so-tongue-in-the-cheek jab at society as a whole for the hypocrisy
>>evidenced by this situation.  There's a not-so-subtle value judgement
>>being used here:  if you're married, then you're a "good person" and we'll
>>look the other way, mostly; but if you're divorced or an out-of-wedlock
>>parent (father usually, in both cases) then by God and all that's Holy,
>>you're gonna PAY!!
>>
>>
>>Jerry Roe		National Congress for Men
>
>
>	This point is very well made.  But I still have to argue the
>	exact opposite stance for two reasons.
>
>	1) There is a thing called freedom and privacy which people
>	cherish.  There is no way that society has the time, the desire,
>	or the resources to accomplish the noble task that you suggest.

But I thought it was clear that wasn't my point.  I don't expect our
society to suddenly adopt the idea that married parents should be required
to support their children at some arbitrarily defined monetary level - as
non-married parents (again, usually fathers) are required to do.  The idea
of setting up the bureaucracy necessary to accomplish that is pretty
ludicrous.

What I *was* trying to do was point out the hypocrisy inherent in the
current system.

>	And just for the record remember/realize that the *ONLY* reason
>	for the current vigilante attitude toward child support is
>	MONEY!!!!!  It is marketed with stuff about "the good of the

Ummm...not really the *only* reason.  It's my belief that a large part of
what you so aptly describe as the current "vigilante" attitude has to do
with the fact that it's *fathers* who have to do the paying.  That's just
an extension of the idea, proven by the statistics on custody, that fathers 
aren't "worthy" somehow (or capable) of being primary care-takers, not-
withstanding the hard evidence to the contrary.

>	2) It is the child support system that's screwed up.  That
>	is what should be fixed.  Two wrongs don't make a right.

Of course.  Again, I wasn't suggesting that there should be another
"wrong", rather that we fix the current problem.

>	The attitude that ex's/kids somehow deserve a guaranteed
>	meal ticket that the rest of the world has no guarantee about.

Well, mostly - I think if it's your own children you're talking about,
those you voluntarily agreed to produce whether in or out of marriage,
then you do owe them an obligation.  As to the ex, however, ah, that's
another story...


Jerry Roe		National Congress for Men
			FREE
			National Council for Children's Rights
jrr@nsc.nsc.com		...!{sun,pyramid,decwrl)!nsc!jrr
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Hating Men with Full Force
Date: 19 Aug 92 17:31:26 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <l60m-xf.sheaffer@netcom.com>, sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:

> A few brief quotes from Houston _Chronicle_ reporter Jacsun Shah, as
> reported in the Jan., 1992 issue of "Liberty" magazine, p. 78:

>    "Yes, I am a man hater, yes, I am a feminist. and why not?

What a sick unit.  It makes me just as ill as when blacks call for the
killing of whites and when whites dress up in pointy hats and lynch blacks.

Oops!  I guess that makes me a "LIBERAL", doesn't it, President Bush? ;-)

Terry "Yet another Liberal posting on USENET" Wood

PS: Has George Bush done the "Pledge of Allegiance" yet in this campaign?
No?!?!  I guess he must be ashamed of the FLAG!  ;-)

-- 
        INTERNET: tjw+@pitt.edu         BITNET: TJW@PITTVMS
"Laugh while you can, Monkey Boy!"                        - Lord "John" Warfin
"There can be only one!"                                  - The Highlander
"There should have been only one. I want my money back!"  - Terry
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity
From: hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress)
Subject: "As a taxpayer [Bob B. says] screw [Deadbeats]"
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 21:32:00 GMT

bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
>hamton.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress) writes:
>>    Says you.  So long as you can pretend that that
>>    child is supported by a (unwilling) father, everything
>>    is "off your shoulders."   Society his content.
>
>If they agree beforehand that they are going
>to dump any offspring in society's lap, as a taxpayer that
>is now my concern and my simple answer is screw you. You
>want to play the russian roulette of sex, but figure that
>someone else should get shot if it lands on a live chamber.

   "Agreements beforehand" are invalid.
   Only the judge can determine the child's fate.
   
   So you don't want to pay for "unwanted children" --
   society, as a whole, does -- by forcing men to
   be "wallet dads".

  May you be forced to support someone else --
  and may you have no legal recourse to get out of it.
From: dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Ann Landers Sexual Harassment article
Date: 12 Aug 92 22:19:56 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Aug12.185156.6550@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts) writes:
> In <5514@transfer.stratus.com> dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber) writes:
> 
> > Ann Landers writes:
> >>   Dear Mr. Hayward:  These laws CAN protect men, but only if men are
> >> willing to follow through in court.
> 
> >Don't you just love it?  Imagine a man saying "Rape laws CAN protect women,
> >but only if women are willing to follow through in court".  Sigh.
> 
> But she is right.  So many of these poorly designed S.H. policies are in
> effect because people were unwilling to look after their own self-interests.
> When people are unwilling to take any risks to protect themselves, they
> should expect others to do it for them.

I think you missed my point.  My point was that if a man made the comment
about rape which I hypothesized, there would be a howl of outrage about
how many women *don't* follow through because of all the sh*t they go thru
if they do so.  Ann doesn't seem to realize that many people in this country
would laugh off a man's SH complaint, so why should he bother?  Seems to me
that the same principle applies.


> Ken

-- 

Dan S.
From: samurai@homer.cs.mcgill.ca (Darcy Brockbank)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: HATE (was "Hating Men...")
Date: 19 Aug 92 16:50:44 GMT
Reply-To: samurai@uriel.cs.mgill.ca
Organization: SOCS, McGill University, Montreal, Canada

In article <l60m-xf.sheaffer@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)  
writes:
> A few brief quotes from Houston _Chronicle_ reporter Jacsun Shah, as
> reported in the Jan., 1992 issue of "Liberty" magazine, p. 78:
> 
>    "Yes, I am a man hater, yes, I am a feminist. and why not?
>     Women are dying . They die every day, at the hands of men.
>     Men ... beat them, rape them, dismember them. Hell yes, I
>     hate men ... To all of you women out there, I say _hate_.
>     You have every right to ... I knew the kindest thing I could
>     do for the women of this world is to hate men with full force."
> 
> (entered exactly as published in Liberty).

Flaws in logic...

Yes I am a Serb hater, yes, I am a Croatian. and why not?
Croatians are dying. They die every day at the hands of Serbs.
Serbs beat them... I knew the kindest thing I could do for the
Croats of the world is to hate Serbs with full force.

Similarly:

Yes I am a Croat hater, yes, I am a Serb. and why not?
Serbs are dying. They die every day at the hands of Croats...


Raw stupidity. For the record I AM Croatian, and I reject the
flawed logic that leads this person to hate men. It is the same
flawed logic that makes for hate in former Yugoslavia, and I reject 
that as well. I don't hate. Serbs have no right to hate me
because I am Croatian. Women have no right to hate me because
I am a man.

Being an Anglo-Saxon Croatian cross, male, heterosexual just makes
me feel so hated. I for one am tired of every "ism" and group
and faction of the world directing their hate at me.

I don't hate them. Why do I have to be hated? Sadly, hate breeds
hate, and nobody seems to realize it.

- db
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.dads-rights
From: fabian@gecko.cis.ohio-state.edu (anjanette louise fabian)
Subject: Pre-conception contract
Summary: Is it possible? legal? enforceable?
Keywords: conception sex contract child support abortion
Organization: The Ohio State University, Department of Computer and Information Science
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 06:21:24 GMT

	I posted this idea to alt.politics.clinton when the abortion debate
was raging, but I think I'll post it here too.

	The idea is to avoid the "She killed my child!" "I'm stuck supporting
a child I don't want!"  cries of the fathers.  How?  By specifying in a 
preconception contract the responsibilities of both parents.  This would
include whether abortion is an option and the financial and child rearing
responsibilities.  If the mother agrees to carry a child to term, she could
be reimbursed for her medical expenses, loss of income due to incapacitation
or complications, "damages" due to restriction of activities and mental and 
emotional stress.  I think that surrogates get around 15 to 20 thousand dollars
, and they are willing and prepared as opposed to a woman who is not prepared
for the ordeal.  If you look at a worst case scenario where a woman is
bedridden and possibly hospitalized,  and she loses her job as result and
has no insurance: well, well, well.... welcome to the million dollar baby!

	The idea in that case is to fairly compensate the women for an ordeal
that is not easy or pleasant, provide proper prenatal care and to discourage 
people from thinking they can recoup costs by selling the child.

	Of course the contract can stipulate that abortion is an option and
that the costs will be split fairly.  

	What happens to the child after birth?  Well that is up to the parents
to decide.  The mother may agree only to carry to term, and then give the 
child to the father to raise.  What the hey, single parenthood can be so
much fun!

	Of course the sexual partners should sign _before_ engaging in 
sexual intercourse.  It makes for _such_ a romantic evening!

(Well if we can have pre nuptial contracts, why not pre conception?)
Anjanette Fabian
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Bigotry from Ignorance
Date: 13 Aug 92 20:56:02 GMT
Organization: burp
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

Vladimir Kuznetsov trumpets:

 	This is nothing more but a piece of crap. Here in San Francisco
 AIDS is a main concern for people of "alternative sexual orientation".

Speak for yourself, Vlad. AIDS is a concern for anyone who is concerned
about epidemics.

In a related vein, Tim Pierce wonders:

     ...........given the astonishingly low number of
     queers who understand what safe sex is all about.

Well this is flame bait if I ever heard it. I suppose Tim has
this evidence first hand. . .

Dano
Xref: sparky soc.men:15021 soc.women:15293 soc.singles:22607 talk.bizarre:26130
From: diana@wetware.com (CatWoman )
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,soc.singles,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: "Congratulations" and/or "Best Wishes"
Date: 15 Aug 92 16:27:23 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare MouseCatcher

dave@silver.sni.ca (Dave Till) writes:

] dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dave Eisen) writes:
] >And Amy, congratulations on getting married. Or, as my girlfriend
] >keeps reminding me to say to women, best wishes.
] 
] I've always wondered about this.  Years ago, I was told to say "best wishes"
] to women, and "congratulations" to men.  My question:  is this still correct
] etiquette?

No no NO!!

The Proper wording for BOTH men AND women is, of course,
"CONDOLENCES"...

8-) 

Diana

(Okay - after almost 9 years of separation, my divorce
is final in 5 days - so I HAD to say this...)
From: starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu (aaron greenwood)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Feminist Gerbil Owners
Date: 14 Aug 92 16:25:51 GMT
Organization: University of California, Riverside

In article <32660053@hpmwmat.sr.hp.com> mikep@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Mike Powell) writes:
>
>	
>	Chris.... I was touched by your posting...  and I feel sad to
>	think that you have lost touch with your daughter....

I do too.  I am glad that you have had the character and strength to go
on with life but it's one hell of a burden you carry.  I wish you well.

The advice that Mike Powell gave you about creating a journal is very sound
indeed.  Store your love there.  I am sure the day will come when she will
look for you.  I believe that as you daughter grows older her mother will
find it impossible to intercept all her mail and you will get through.

starbuck
From:  (kamchar@ibm.cl.msu.edu (SunCat))
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Feminist Gerbil Owners
Date: 13 Aug 92 22:33:21 GMT
Organization: here

In article <32660053@hpmwmat.sr.hp.com>,... writes:
> 
> 	
> 	Chris.... I was touched by your posting...  and I feel sad to
> 	think that you have lost touch with your daughter....
[much good stuff deleted for reasons of bandwidth]
> 
> 	Best of luck...
> 
> 	-Mike-
All I can say is "me too".   This has happened to me as well, with 
difference that I am the son, not the father in this story (folks
got divorced in 1969).  It's a fairly standard story.  My mother flew
into vicious, insane rages all the time, forbade my brother and I to 
see my father.  The courts were too reactionary to see fathers as perhaps
*more* funtional than an industrial robot and would not enforce visitaion
rights.  My mother told me what my father was like--and that was the only
source of information I had.  

I finally determined to reconnect with my father my father--thanks to Robert Bly's
article in the May 1982 _New Age Journal_.  Glad I did.

SunCat   kamchar@ibm.cl.msu.edu
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: "Uncritical support"
Date: 14 Aug 92 02:00:05 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

# "She will be a great mother if we will just send the FBI after the 
# father and take him to the cleaners."

In article <l8lr77INNdea@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> 
danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:
>Where did this quote come from?

That's how I understand the belief that sending the FBI after 
dead-beat dads is the solution for the single mothers problems.

How do you understand this belief?
Newsgroups: soc.men,misc.legal
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Discharging Debts
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 08:08:05 GMT

In article <1992Aug7.231320.14695@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
>)Child support is slavery???  What about other judicial awards of damages?
>)Does any judgment of the court to pay money constitute slavery?  
>
>I tend to agree a little.  However, from what I've read, bankruptcy is in
>practice not an option for child support.  And it should be.  Judges can
>set whatever unrealistic 'potential earnings' figures they like, then there
>is in practice no relief through bankruptcy.  Awards for accidents without
>negligence are often covered through bankruptcy.  (I'm sure Ted will correct
>me if I'm wrong :-)).

I'm hardly the expert on bankruptcy, but under $523(a) of the bankruptcy
code, educational loans or tax debts aren't dischargeable either.

(Furthermore, some child support obligations can be discharged, unless
I'm reading 523(a)(5)(B) wrong.  But the argument was that child support
is treated unlike anything else, which simply isn't the case.)
-- 
             ......................................................
             ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | std disclaimers
             the university of chicago law skool, chicago, illinois
             you can't throw me to the lions -- i'm charlton heston
From: stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Date: 12 Aug 92 13:13:19 GMT
Distribution: usa

Bob Kirkpatrick blithers

+ Yes. But I think it may have been more accurate to say:
+ 
+ WOMAN:  Choice 1:  Participating in becomming pregnant
+         Choice 2:  Dealing with Choice #1
                 a:  abortion
                 b:  adoption
                 c:  keep and charge father

+ MAN:    Choice 1:  Participating in a pregnancy
+         Choice 2:  Dealing with Choice #1
                 a:  watch your child get flushed -or-
                     a sigh of relief
                 b:  watch your child be given to someone else -or-
                     a sigh of relief
                 c:  pay up or die scum!

Oh, silly me. It's perfectly symetrical!

Yea, right.

K'Char
Xref: sparky soc.men:15211 soc.women:15490
From: dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: mandatory service
Date: 19 Aug 92 21:38:45 GMT
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <4069@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us>, shomer@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us writes:
> <stricher-160892164315@stayman.ocean.fsu.edu>
> 
> In article <stricher-160892164315@stayman.ocean.fsu.edu>, 
> stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul) writes:
> > shomer@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us wrote:
> > 

[deleted]

> 
> It's not very relevant to me personally. 
> In any case, female privilege in custody is fast eroding. 

Any proof for this assertion?


> It's still true that women are more often the primary
> caregiver for children, and when this is true I think the law should favor
> the mother in custody. It's funny: when I talk about custody issues with 
> women, they're always asking "what's good for the kid?" 
> Men seem more concerned with their property rights over the kid. 
> -- 
> _________________________________
> Steve Homer  shomer@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us

-- 

Dan S.
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Equal Male Rights
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 08:11:35 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.072202.4841@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Aug12.011741.28510@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Aug8.015920.18753@cfctech.cfc.com> kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>Scrap the paternity statutes, and adapt regular tort or contract principles 
>>>for deciding paternity child support liability. 
>>
>>Ummm, regular tort or contract principles support the current system.
>>Perhaps you're thinking of something else.
>
>Or, then again, perhaps you're just trying to be smug...
>
>If regular contract principles apply, why aren't child-support contracts
>legal, without some special Squeal of Approval from the judge who decides
>custody?

You're the one with the burden of proof here.  Demonstrate
regular contract principles.  Do you have *any* analagous situations from
the common law?  On the other hand, there are cases from the common law
where the man tried to contract out of legal obligations to his female
companion and the courts wouldn't enforce them.  See, for example, McCoy
v Flynn, 169 Iowa 622 (1915); Estate of Duncan, 87 Colo. 149 (1930).  
Allowances for prenuptial agreements are a modern shift.  The main
reason courts didn't used to uniformly enforce paternity suits is because,
until recently, proof of paternity was near impossible.

As for the potential of unconscionability, even in prenuptial agreements,
see Newman v Newman, 653 P2d 728 (Colo 1982) (reversing Duncan in part,
but still valid in our context).

I suggest you start with Volumes 14 and 15 of Williston's treatise, or
volume 6A in Corbin's if you're truly interested in unenforceability.
Or see $193 of the Second Restatement of Contracts on whether one can
contract out of a fiduciary duty to a third party.
-- 
             ......................................................
             ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | std disclaimers
             the university of chicago law skool, chicago, illinois
             you can't throw me to the lions -- i'm charlton heston
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support