HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: It isn't slavery
Date: 17 Aug 92 13:46:04 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory

In article <1992Aug13.135043.5501@practic.com> brunner@practic.UUCP (Thomas Eric Brunner) writes:
>
>Finally, not being able to communicate with all the soc.* dingbats and
>crockpots is a blessing, not a curse. The bigest problem with a.c-s
>before soc.* discovered it was BobK's "don't criticise social workers"
>fixation, and the periodic crock by jcr@milton.u.washington.edu, and
>the idiotic "tick tock" trailers-as-messages by a person who apparently
>needs to be net-noticed. That was quite a bit preferable this flood of
>opinionated drivel (since 3 August).
>
>899:From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)

		Etc., Etc.

>1100:From: falk@rembrandt.Sun.COM (Ed Falk)
>-- 
>#include <std/disclaimer.h>
>Eric Brunner 4bsd/RT Project
>inet: brunner@monet.berkeley.edu		uucp: uunet!practic!brunner
>trying to understand multiprocessing is like having bees live inside your head.



	Outside of simply saying, "WHAT THE FUCK IS YOUR POINT!"

	Let me say:

	1) How interesting that you were willing and able to compile
	such an endless list of news headers.

	2)  Seriously, can you boil this whole issue down to anything
	simpler than "tick tock"?  I mean laws aren't going to change.
	Ever.  And years of endless dribble like what gets posted here
	isn't going to change anything. So "tick tock" is the baseline
	event that is going to make a change;  the clock running out.

-- 
	Alan Yasutovich
	"inquiring  (and nosey) minds WANT TO KNOW!!!"
	I can remember when "safe sex" meant having a padded headboard!!
	Tick Tock.....Tick Tock......Tick Tock .....Tick Tock......
From: jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Give your child a life!
Date: 18 Aug 92 21:13:05 GMT
Reply-To: jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress)
Organization: University of Washington

Charles Perez writes
> (Alton Harkcom) writes:
> >   [Jeff], give your child a life!
> >Don't avoid this responsibility...  Give your child a life!
> 
> Say this to a woman with an unwanted pregnancy. Really. Go ahead.

  hehehehehehe!
 
  In Alton`s dream world, women aren't human --
  instead they're just objects that can be 
  controlled by men.
From: baba@samadhi.Tymnet.COM (Duane Hentrich)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Woody Allen Charged With Molesting his Kids in Custody Battle
Date: 21 Aug 92 17:53:25 GMT
Organization: BT North America (Tymnet)

In article <1992Aug21.071008.27532@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <2339@tymix.Tymnet.COM> baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich) writes:
>>I will use this opportunity to repeat my feeling that, in cases such as this,
>>the media and public should STAY THE HELL OUT of the proceedings. It is
>>a family affair, not entertainment. 
>   ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^
>Freudian slip, no?

No, it was quite conscious, thank you.

>If the family really wanted to keep it quiet they wouldn't
>(1) have hired Dershowitz to be a lawyer [Mia], or (2) held a press
>conference to announce the affair [Woody].

Yes, I agree that they have both engaged the media in this. I am being a bit
of a Pollyanna about this since I would like the media to butt out
and not be a part and parcel of the three ring morality play being
scripted. Silly me.

I will suggest that everyone get down to their favorite video outlet
and rent your copies of _Manhattan_ and _Rosemary's Baby_ before there's
a big waiting list. ;^}

-- 
d'baba Duane M. Hentrich	baba@Tymnet.Com

We have yet to learn that the thing uttered in words is not therefore affirmed. It must affirm itself, or no forms of logic or of oath can give it evidence. 
The sentence must also contain its own apology for being spoken. - R.W.Emerson
From: jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: chauvinistic Posts
Date: 18 Aug 92 21:19:20 GMT
Reply-To: jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress)
Organization: University of Washington

Robert Sheaffer writes
>  (Alton Harkcom) writes:
> >   If the man picked the wrong woman then he deserves the blame for it...
> From which I presume it follows that if a woman picked the wrong man,
> and gets beaten, abused, etc., then she deserves the blame for the
> situation?

  hehehehehe!

   Alton, you wouldn't be sexist would you?
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Some Politically Incorrect questions
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com
Date: 14 Aug 92 09:22:35 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Electronic Data Systems, Unigraphics Division, Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: royce

In article <713681415@lear.cs.duke.edu>, gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:
> # Let's get the ball rolling!  Hire a wife today!
> 
> %Probably be cheaper and less trying than being married?? [1]
> %1] I've never been married, so I don't know the costs.
> 
> In article <1992Aug7.201542.25763@no1home.nashvil.ingr.com> 
> puter@no1home.nashvil.ingr.com (PuterDude) writes:
>>And by lookin' at your comment (I noticed there was NOT a smiley),
>>I would say that you don't also know of the benefits.
> 
> 1) If marriage is such a bad deal for women, they why are they the
>    ones who usually push in that direction?
> 
> 2) If divorce is such a bad deal for women, they why are they the
>    ones usually push in that direction?
> 
> 3) What is a better deal for a woman, to get married and 
>    divorced or to stay single?
-- 

  And why are "mommy track women" still living an average of 8 years
longer than men while "career track" women are starting to drop dead
right alongside their male counterparts?

  Seems like getting to stay home and play with the kids wasn't
the unhealthy and streeful horror the feminists made it out to be.


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com  Middle-Aged Mutant Ninja Animator   |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|  I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and    |
| causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . Corporations  |
| have been enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow,  |
| and the money-power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign  |
| by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is       |
| aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.               |
|                                                                        |
|              --- Abraham Lincoln                                       |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Ann Landers Sexual Harassment article
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 20:21:57 GMT

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'll interpret this as 'shouldn't', it makes more sense that way.

There is a lot of truth to this, but it's hard for me to imagine exactly
how the average person is supposed to protest these policies, which were
decided by the courts listening to the EEOC.

The average person *might* be able to take advantage of these policies,
though, to solve some of the problems mentioned in the letters to Ann.

I'd be interested to see what Fred Hayward's reply to Ann was (not that it
was published most likely :-() - he's the sort of person who *does* attempt
to fight these things in the courts when he can.


Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support
From: vixie@pa.dec.com (Paul A Vixie)
Subject: Re: Equal Male Rights
Organization: DEC Network Software Lab
	<VIXIE.92Aug22131333@cognition.pa.dec.com> <BtEyvB.J1v@cs.psu.edu>
Date: 22 Aug 92 21:59:09

[beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)]
>Could you explain "trivially overcome it"?
>
>Is it really possible for a man to take the baby into his own house,
>into his house for half the time, or even just into his arms, if the
>woman objects?

In the case where the woman wants to give the baby up for adoption, yes,
it is a trivial matter for the biological father to get full custody.
Not as automatic as in the sex-reversed case, but still basically just a
procedural matter with the near-deterministic outcome being success.
In this kind of case it would be nearly automatic that "adoption" isn't
what happens, but rather, full custody and child support would go to the
father.  Probably because of this, I'd expect a disinterested woman to
keep the baby just because it looks "easier" than paying child support,
which in fact it is not for anyone above poverty-level -- raising babies
is fun but it's not easy.

>Or are you saying the +legal+ consequences of not being able to
>take the child into his arms are trivial to overcome?  Does this
>mean that the woman's sole personal care of the baby is not taken
>into account in any subsequent custody dispute?

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean here.
--
Paul Vixie, DEC Network Systems Lab	
Palo Alto, California, USA         	"Don't be a rebel, or a conformist;
<vixie@pa.dec.com> decwrl!vixie		they're the same thing, anyway.  Find
<paul@vix.com>     vixie!paul		your own path, and stay on it."  -me
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
From: crgoc@bard.uk.cray.com (Gary O'Connor)
Subject: Re: mandatory service
Organization: Cray Research (UK) Ltd
Date: 14 Aug 92 10:04:46 CDT

Here, Here
-- 

 Gary O'Connor (crgoc@uk  extn:2245)

	Any simple problem can be made insoluble if enough meetings are
        held to discuss it.
From: dennisp@kpc.com (Dennis Preston)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Some Politically Incorrect questions
Date: 15 Aug 92 21:22:16 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Inc, Santa Clara, CA

In article <1992Aug14.092235.1@mdcbbs.com> rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:
>In article <713681415@lear.cs.duke.edu>, gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:
>> # Let's get the ball rolling!  Hire a wife today!
>> 
>> %Probably be cheaper and less trying than being married?? [1]
>> %1] I've never been married, so I don't know the costs.
>> 
>> In article <1992Aug7.201542.25763@no1home.nashvil.ingr.com> 
>> puter@no1home.nashvil.ingr.com (PuterDude) writes:
>>>And by lookin' at your comment (I noticed there was NOT a smiley),
>>>I would say that you don't also know of the benefits.
>> 
>> 1) If marriage is such a bad deal for women, they why are they the
>>    ones who usually push in that direction?
>> 
>> 2) If divorce is such a bad deal for women, they why are they the
>>    ones usually push in that direction?
>> 
>> 3) What is a better deal for a woman, to get married and 
>>    divorced or to stay single?
>-- 
>
#3 Really stupid question Dipshit!  #%$1400.00 a fargin month!(she works) :-)A
 
>  And why are "mommy track women" still living an average of 8 years
>longer than men while "career track" women are starting to drop dead
>right alongside their male counterparts?
>
>  Seems like getting to stay home and play with the kids wasn't
>the unhealthy and streeful horror the feminists made it out to be.
>
>
><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com  Middle-Aged Mutant Ninja Animator   |
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>|  I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and    |
>| causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . Corporations  |
>| have been enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow,  |
>| and the money-power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign  |
>| by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is       |
>| aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.               |
>|                                                                        |
>|              --- Abraham Lincoln                                       |
><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
From: mikep@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Mike Powell)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Feminist Gerbil Owners
Date: 13 Aug 92 03:08:21 GMT
Organization: HP Santa Rosa Site (NMD MTA MWTD)


	
	Chris.... I was touched by your posting...  and I feel sad to
	think that you have lost touch with your daughter....

	Consider doing this... I predict that someday your daughter
	will have a need to see you again.  I understand why you might
	fear that she will not believe your 'story'.  Try this.
	Keep a journal for her... and start at the beginning.  Write in it
	the things you had done, the things you had felt.  Put in it
	how you feel about her, write about how her absence has hurt you.
	Write about the difficulties and problems, and the reasons why
	you did what you did.  Write about your fears about not seeing her
	again.  Write in the journal every time you think of her... when
	you see something that reminds you of her... when her birthday comes
	and you send off a card via registered mail....  Put it all down.
	But don't fill it with hate or desperation... and DON'T write
	anything about her mother or the marriage (or as little as possible).
	And one day, when she comes to visit, give it to her as your gift.


	Amazingly, I have heard of this happening SO MANY TIMES that I
	can hardly believe it... There are many ugly things on this Earth,
	but keeping children from a parent... and filling the child's
	head with lies about the 'missing' parent, has to be one of
	the ugliest things ever created by man (or a woman, as is most
	often the case).

	Best of luck...

	-Mike-
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Subject: Re: Bob is NOT the benefactor that he claims to be.
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 92 23:35:32 GMT

In article <1992Aug22.211938.16971@u.washington.edu> hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress) writes:
>(Bob Kirkpatrick) writes:
>>hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress) writes:
>>->   You can't (financially) rape the willing.
>>->   Bob reasons: "If I don't THINK I'm a slave then I'm not one."
>>->   and "Damned be anyone who chooses an `alternate' lifestyle."
>>
>>For you to make the bullshit statement above only serves to ratify my
>>decision to disengage from helping you any longer. When you chose to
>>abandon the process when it was 90% of the way done, in order to be a
>>belligerent to the court, your ex and her lawyer, I suspected that you
>>weren't interested in what you claimed was your goal; . . .
>> . . . Some people just don't
>>get it that some of us may have different opinions on what we think is
>>right, but are willing to accept a different point of view, and even
>>try to help 'the opposing view' get what they want for themselves. What
>>we manifest in our various debates here has little to do with how we
>>will react to specific circumstances.
>
>   Thanks for the "help", Bob.
>   So you refuse to help me -- What's new?
>   You never intended to help me.
>   I don't require your help.
>   Just stop claiming that you've legally helped people --
>   Dispite my inquiries, I've seen no evidence of such claims.
>   
>   I have several problems with you, Bob:
>     - You don't support, in word or deed,
>       "(More) Equal Male Choice"
>     - Dispite my repeated requests -- 
>       you would never give me the name
>       and address of someone who you (claim)
>       to have helped to "effectively"
>       terminate his support duties via
>       an "agreement" *SIGNED BY THE JUDGE*!*!*!
>     - When I decided that I wanted to pursue direct
>       "Parental Termination" via the state
>       code on adoption -- you abandoned me.
>
>  If I want to act "pro se" (like you) -- then that
>  is MY CHOICE.  If I want "parental termination"
>  rather than an agreement between me my ex and the
>  judge then that is MY CHOICE.  If you want to
>  duck out of helping me then that is YOUR CHOICE.
>  But let the netters know that you are not the
>  benefactor that you claim to be.

	Yet another case?

-- 
	Alan Yasutovich
	"inquiring  (and nosey) minds WANT TO KNOW!!!"
	I can remember when "safe sex" meant having a padded headboard!!
	Tick Tock.....Tick Tock......Tick Tock .....Tick Tock......
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Equal Male Rights
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 07:22:02 GMT

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:
>>In article <1992Aug7.042743.21796@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
>>>In article <1992Aug7.003830.9547@u.washington.edu>
>>>jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress) writes: 
>>>#    This "nature is unequal hence the laws should stay unequal"
>>>#    is the biggest bunch of sexist crap that I've ever had to ingest.
>>>
>>>Propose a method besides force abortions for women, and you might get
>>>a hearing. 
>>
>>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?

If regular tort principles apply, why can't a woman who fails to abort 
after having defrauded and/or misled the man vis-a-vis contraceptive 
protection be sued for having violated her duty of care, and ordered to 
reimburse him penny-for-penny for his statutory child-support liability?

Doesn't seem very "regular" to me, but then what do I know, I'm not part of 
the status quo apologist elite, right??

>Followups directed out of misc.legal.

That's nice.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support
From: brunner@telebit.com (Eric Brunner)
Subject: Re: Equal Male Rights
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 17:00:49 GMT

In article <+j_nzs#@lynx.unm.edu> bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
>In article <1992Aug18.183212.29094@telebit.com> brunner@telebit.com (Eric Brunner) writes:

[in response to what I thought was a question about obtaining standing to
 assert a claim for parental rights, omitted]

>I don't think you understand the point I was making.

Shit, here I thought you were asking a question, and you were making a point.
Not to mention somehow moving from the real-life problem of fathers seeking
to obtain custody of children who's paternity is not known, to hospital
practice of presuming observed birth as a fairly reliable indicator or legal
maternity. I was writing a longer piece yesterday, but I'm glad I didn't
waste more time than I did.

>No, it isn't a personal question.  I don't have children and don't
>plan on having any.  I know of nobody who is in this particular
>situation, personally.  I'm simply wondering what the situation is so
>that when it comes up in conversation elsewhere (say, the "Sex and
>Gender in Society" class here), I can be confident of my position.

Mr. Evans, is there the slightest possibility that your "work" in a.c-s will
contribute to anyone else's life than your own? In particular, a parent
reading and writing in a.c-s? If after mature reflection you arive at
the conclusion that it is doubtful, edit your newsgroups line accordingly.

Xref: sparky soc.men:15072 soc.women:15339 alt.censorship:6979 sci.skeptic:14434
From: bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician)
Subject: Re: Abandoment is not same as Adoption
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 11:50:06 GMT
Organization: Society for the Preservation of E. coli
Distribution: usa

Mike King writes in regard to why fathers shouldn't be allowed to give
up all rights and responsibilities to as-yet-unborn children:

>But once the child is there it has to be taken care of.

Mike, I don't think you'll find any one of us who advocate choice for
men saying that a child that is born shouldn't be taken care of.

However, you are assuming that that child has been born.  We are
talking about giving the man the choice of whether or not he will
support the child *before* it is born while the woman still has the
option of abortion.

Yes, it means that her choice depends on his, but it isn't so
far-reaching a decision as what exists today.  It is quite possible
that she wants the baby, but can't deal with it on her own.  Thus, if
he decides to opt out, she has to choose something against her own
desires...but she still has options.  Nobody is forcing her to have an
abortion.

As it exists right now, he has no options.  What happens to him is
completely dependent upon her...and can have far-reaching
consequences.  She can easily force him into financially support the
child (yes, I realize that enforcement can be quite difficult, but
that isn't the point.)

-- 
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
From: samurai@homer.cs.mcgill.ca (Darcy Brockbank)
Subject: Re: Hating Men with Full Force
Reply-To: samurai@uriel.cs.mgill.ca
Organization: SOCS, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 16:05:00 GMT

In article <92233.49834.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM>  
J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
> He just mentions that there *are* cases where women are the perpetrators and
> men *are* the victims occasionally, and you go ballistic and attempt to deny

A couple of days ago a 33 year old woman was arrested in Montreal for
beating a 37 year old man to death outside a club. Witnesses reported
her sitting on his chest and repeatedly smashing his head against
the pavement.

When witnesses tried to intervene she said, "F*** off, he's got my
coke." She did not know the victim, who later died in hospital.

This was reported in the Montreal Gazette, Aug 19th (I think).


- db

Xref: sparky soc.men:15248 soc.women:15521
From: linda@wendy.net.com (Linda Hill)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Hating Men with Full Force
Date: 20 Aug 92 14:49:43 GMT
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies

In article <2A932F7E.4032@orion.oac.uci.edu> cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman) writes:
>Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano writes
>> You know, I don't see the same sort of outrage from
>> Sheaffer over such issues as genital mutilation, gang
>> rape, forced prostitution, the sale of 'wives' from
>> overseas, or-- closer to the point-- that derange-o who
>> shot up a bunch of coeds in Canada about two years ago
>> because he was 'sick of all the feminists.' 
>
>Don't be silly. There is any number of things which all civilized people in 
>the world (including Mr Sheaffer) abhor and condemn. Genital mutilation, gang
>rape, forced prostitution, murder or genocide are all among them. But just
>_because_ this condemnation is so unanimous, it is utterly pointless to write
>an indignant article about them to a usenet _discussion_ forum.

Well I didn't see any outrage.  All I saw was a quoted article.  Not knowing
the poster I initially assumed support for the quote.  :-)

The point I got from Brian's post was "No wonder women hate men.  Look at what
women have gone through at the hand's of men."  That may not be what he meant,
but it sure hit home for me.









linda@net.com