HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Date: 5 Nov 92 10:48:12 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Swarthmore College, PA

In article <Bx7Ky3.6nw@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>In article <QYNSB17T@cc.swarthmore.edu> auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer) writes:
>>In article <BwyEK1.L1C@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>>In article <N0GSB7DQ@cc.swarthmore.edu> auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer) writes:
>>>>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>>>Since the husband will be the legal father and be responsible for the
>>>>>childs welfare for perhaps 18 years or so, do you not think that he has
>>>>>some right to know, even if the wife finds it inconvienient to tell him?
>>>
>>>
>>>>Reality check.
>>>
>>>Yes, please.  Let's look at your points, most of which are irrelevant
>>>to notification.
>>>
>>>>Men and women have the same responsibility for their role in conception
>>>>theoretically except...
>>>>
>>>>A man can leave town and a woman has a baby in her tummy no matter how you
>>>>slice it.
>>>
>>>Reality: you're talking about a soon-to-be (if not already) federal CRIME.
>>
>>In many circumstances an unenforcable one.
>
>Unenforceable because he flees his COUNTRY, his FAMILY, his JOB,
>and any CHILDREN he might already have?
>
>Or because she has no idea (or evidence) who the father is?
>
>Is it as unenforceable as visitation rights?
>
>By the way, once the "baby" is outside her "tummy," she can "leave town"
>just as easily.  Some women do.  Do we calculate the responsibilities
>held by people on the basis of the minority who escape?

This is another example of why I dislike logic so much.

-dave
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 00:17:32 GMT

In article <HQTSB8DR@cc.swarthmore.edu> auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.223449.25865@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov3.144951.2536@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> jrmo@volta.att.com (J.R.Moore) writes:
>>>In article <BwyFDw.LJu@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Oct30.145703.13722@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> jrmo@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (joseph.r.moore) writes:
>>>>>I have some thoughts.  Really.
>>>>You forgot a smiley-face.
>>>>>And we all know that the next step from notification is consent.
>>>>And the next step from the right to bear arms is the right to kill people.
>>>>You have a nice slogan that we may all know well.  It's a bit short 
>>>>on the "thoughts" side, though.  IMO.
>>>Ouch!  Suppose we have a new law that requires notification to buy guns.
>>>What relevance is it what your spouse thinks, either it's your right and
>>>soley your decision, or it's not.  I don't mind getting hammered on this
>>>issue, but let's see some thoughts on the relevance of notification.
>>>Either the baby is a part of the woman's body and under her sole control,
>>>or it's a separate entity, deserving of rights.
>>Or maybe it's not that simple at all.
>Legally, that is exactly how simple it should be.

Why?

Did the good fairy promise you a simple life, or something?
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.singles,soc.women
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Strong women in film (was Re: What do you Am men think about Am women?)
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 09:14:51 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.101812.9978@news.cs.indiana.edu> "Amy Young Leith" <alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu> writes:
>In article <1992Nov9.050437.20319@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>>
>>Just a coincidence that nearly all the lesbian and bisexual women are
>>killers?
>
>I can't read your intent here... are you being facetious because you
>feel the movie was a "bad move" because it portrayed a bisexual as a
>possible killer?  
>
>If so.... 
>
>I say let's not try and strike down movies we find negative, but move
>for the creation of more movies which we view as positive.  Support
>gay writers and producers, and let them know what you want to see...
>If that's more realistic and positive views on lesbians, gays, and
>bisexuals, then say so.  

I'm saying that I am tired of mainstream films that present lesbians
and gay men as stereotypes.  Yes, if you see films that target
lesbigay audiences, you actually see real queer characters.  In
mainstream films, though, the queer characters are usually comic
relief or perverts getting murdered or murdering.

I don't know exactly what you mean about striking down movies we find
negative.

Newsgroups: soc.men
From: nissim@mary.fordham.edu (Leonard J. Nissim)
Subject: Re: Feinsteinism
Organization: Fordham University
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 16:53:00 GMT
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Distribution: usa
X-Posted-From: mary.fordham.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <4320039@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com>, kurts@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com 
(Kurt Strain) writes...
>Here in California we elected two new women Senators.  A lot of men helped
>to make their victories possible.  They are Dianne Feinstein and Barbara
>Boxer.  So what do I see on the news last night?  There's both of them
>standing hand-in-hand and Dianne quips "The roosters may crow all night, but
>the hens get the job done."  Thanks, Dianne, sorry us worthless roosters
>voted your ass in.  I guess being a new woman Senator she's entitled to
>certain female Senatorial low blows.

The appropriate reaction to a Senator who made clear that she does not rep-
resent you (a man who voted for her) is obvious.  As she won the 'short seat'
(two years left of what had been Wilson's 6-year term), you will get a chance 
to react in just two years.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leonard J. Nissim  (nissim@mary.fordham.edu)   
Disclaimer:  "I speak only for myself."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: pcsd1146@altair.selu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: RE:An Open Letter to Bill Clinton
Date: 11 Nov 92 16:14:14 -0600
Organization: Southeastern Louisiana University

All of you Pro-choice people make me so sick. Look lets get to the real issue.
It is violating a womans body if you tell her that she must do this. Oh!
just because I find it morally wrong. Key word there "I" look people lets worry
about ourselves first. I think there is something else you can occupy your time
with besides blocking abortion clinics.
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
From: aaldrich@encore.com (Al Aldrich)
Subject: Re: Height based wage inequity (was Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:21:31 GMT

weverka@spot.Colorado.EDU (Robert T. Weverka) writes:


>no glass ceiling for women.  It is all just a proven height discrimination.

Hmm.. I guess Ross Perot must be the exception to the rule?

I really hope you are not serious, are you?
If so, may I ask what you are basing this theory on?

al


-- 
Al Aldrich	inet:aaldrich@encore.com
"..if you understood everything I said, you'd be me." miles davis
----------------------------------------------------------------------
MY opinions are not to be construed as those of my employer.
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
From: jrmo@volta.att.com (J.R.Moore)
Subject: Re: compromise (was Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 15:06:06 GMT

In article <1da49nINNnl2@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>jrmo@volta.att.com (J.R.Moore) writes:
>
>>I have a compromise that will
>>not be accepted by the extreme on either side.  I think many of
>>the middle dwellers may like it.
>
>>Choose a point that marks a time when the pregnancy becomes more
>>than a private matter....
>>It would be illegal to interfere with the privacy of women and their
>>doctors when no evidence of life or no evidence of sustainable life
>>existed in the woman.  Therefore women would be guaranteed the right 
>>to choose to terminate a pregnancy without any roadblocks....
>>once evidence of life or sustainable life exist, the state has a
>>compelling interest to equally protect the lives of both the mother
>>and child.  Therefore, no abortions could be performed after that point,
>>except in life-threatening cases.
>
>Congratulations!  You've just lined out the basic idea behind Roe v Wade.
>
>>By choosing this route, most of the middle dweller would be satisfied,
>>since most of the steam would be taken out of the debate.  And though
>>pro-choice folks would have conceded the third, and perhaps second
>>trimester, they must also realize that only a small percentage of women
>>wait that long.  More women are affected by the restrictions on all 
>>abortions.  And though pro-life folks will be disappointed to draw a
>>line after conception, they must admit that at least there is recognition
>>of the importance of a developing fetus that cannot be denied its rights.
>
>Hasen't exactly quelled discontent over the last 20 years, has it?
>
>							--  Michal
>

I think you missed my point.  Currently there is a lot of fuzziness
over abortion and in many places is not available and in others is
available up to nine months.  My proposal compromises, but clearly
defines a guarantee of a right to abortion for at least 8 weeks after 
conception, and prohibits abortions after, say 20 weeks.  Talk about
choice, let's just decide when a child gets its rights.  I think
a lot of people would be comfortable with this compromise.

Isn't that a little different (and yet does not overrule Roe v. Wade).

Joe Moore
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Date: 11 Nov 1992 04:18:23 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:

>I don't think it's that unlikely that there aren't *some* women who choose to
>[not] have an abortion without informing the father without due cause...do you?

Who defines "due cause"?  If she didn't tell the father, presumeably she
had some reason for not telling him.  Who decides whether that reason was 
"good enough"?

							--  Michal
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
From: forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu (Eric Forbis)
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Organization: University of Minnesota
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 02:07:46 GMT

In article <1992Nov3.183618.22589@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>Xref: news.cis.umn.edu soc.men:18412 soc.women:18384 alt.abortion.inequity:4913 talk.abortion:45999 alt.feminism:3653
>Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
>Path: news.cis.umn.edu!umn.edu!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!caen!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!decwrl!netcomsv!netcom.com!ray
>From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
>Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
>Message-ID: <1992Nov3.183618.22589@netcom.com>
>Organization: Netcom San Jose
>References: <1992Oct30.145703.13722@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> <forb0004.33.720650534@student.tc.umn.edu> <1992Nov3.145708.2748@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>
>Distribution: na
>Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1992 18:36:18 GMT
>Lines: 12
>jrmo@volta.att.com (J.R.Moore) writes ...
>>If the fetus is not a separate entity deserving of rights, namely the
>>right to life, than it is distinctly part of the woman and under her sole 
>>control.
>
>there is another alternative you haven't considered: that the woman's
>body is her own, and she may evict anyone else using it against her
>will.

Does anyone have the right to "evict" when such an action results in the 
death of the evictee? If this is a valid form of reasoning, then local Twin 
Cities residents may have cause to worry when it's 20 below zero outdoors 
and the owner of their habitation arbitrarily decides to evict them.

Believe it or not, my argument isn't against abortion; rather, the notion 
that women somehow have a "right" to kill.
---------

Eric Forbis      forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: dwelch@mpd.tandem.com (Dan Welch)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Date: 10 Nov 92 17:10:31 GMT
Organization: Tandem Computers (MPD) Austin, TX

In article <BxFoFs.974@ccu.umanitoba.ca> kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts) writes:
>You have made a strong case that our reactions are dependent on more than
>whether something is right or wrong.  I don't think  anyone would dissagree
>with that.  However, in all situations, if people hold one side wrong, then
>the other should still be wrong.  This consistency seems to be completely
>lacking in Catherine's response.

I agree with Ken here.  The main point is that even if the swimsuit calendar
and the Chippendales poster *are* different,  the difference does not lie
in the objects themselves, but in our reactions to them.  They cannot be
treated differently because you shouldn't base rules and laws on how people
feel -- it's too fleeting and insubstantial, not to mention different in
every individual.  Thus, if you allow one, you have to allow the other.

The secret is not to ban this, ban that, but to change the general perception
of these things.  Easier said than done, I know.

Daniel Welch
Xref: sparky soc.men:18697 soc.women:18870 alt.abortion.inequity:4863 talk.abortion:46765 alt.feminism:3752
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Date: 5 Nov 92 23:25:10 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

>>My point is that the mother may know who the father is, but not tell.
>>She may just say it's a good male friend.  She may say it's Dan Quayle.
>>She may say it's Santa Clause.  How are you going to tell who it really
>>is?  Are you going to subject women to amniocentesis (or some other test)
>>which introduces risk to both the woman and the foetus?  Are you going 
>>to keep a genetic bank with identifying information on all the men in 
>>the world, so you can check who matches the foetus?  What if the woman/man
>>don't *want* to be tested??

>You have already answered your nonsensical data-base question:  When Dan Quayle
>or Santa Claus are informed of their paternity, they can then make an
>intelligent response, which may well include insisting on proof of paternity.

(1)  How do you propose to test Santa Clause?

(2)  Say the woman doesn't know, or won't tell, what do you do then?
Torture her until she 'fesses up?

							--  Michal
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: charleen@ADS.COM (Charleen Bunjiovianna)
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Organization: The Original Estrogen-Crazed Lust Bunnies
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 16:32:09 GMT

In article <1992Nov3.112353.1@mdcbbs.com> rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:
>
>  In any event, I am concerned that the question of father's rights remains
>focused solely in the context of men who do NOT want children, and
>continues to ignore the rights of husbands who DO want children and who
>have married with that expectation explicitly agreed to. Only then do
>these husbands discover that their wives are free to change their minds 
>about children with impunity whereas a husband cannot change his mind about
>the marriage without suffering the loss of most of his material wealth; wealth
>he accumulated in order to support a family with children. What about _his_
>rights?

Michael, you live in California, you should know better than this.

It's a community property state.  What he accumulated before the
marriage is still his, unless he was (frankly) stupid enough to
co-mingle his assets with his wife's during the marriage, by, say,
selling his house and pooling the proceeds with her money so they could
buy a house together.  The material wealth accumulated during the
marriage is theirs, not his, and gets divided accordingly.

"What about _his_ rights?"  Well, I don't have a heck of a lot of
sympathy any more for men who hand over everything they've worked a
lifetime for, just because wifey-to-be said, "Oh, of *course* I'll keep
working after we're married" or "Yes, I want children too."

Yes, of course, she lied or she changed her mind.  And, no, I don't have
a very high opinion of people like that, either.  But you've got to stand
up for your rights.  Make sure your assets remain yours.

Charleen
--
I eat swiss cheese from the inside out.
From: erik@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Erik Lode)
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 00:19:04 GMT
Subject: Re: Youth Bashing was RE:What do you Am men think about Am Women?REFRESH
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: soc.men

crail@nevada.edu (DONNA CRAIL-RUGOTZKE) writes:

> In action movies, who usually rescues whom?  Do male characters
> rescue female characters or vice-versa?  How are women usually shown
> in these movies?  Let's look at thrillers.  How many women-in-danger-
> movies have we seen the last couple of years?  It can be argued that 
> showing women as victims who need to be rescued by men is "female 
> bashing."

  Similarly, showing that men are vicious brutes who rape and murder is
"male bashing."  How many men-are-mad-slashers movies have we seen in
the last couple of years?

> The military also can be accused of female bashing.  Look at how V.M.I.
> has fought admitting women.  Look at the present debate over whether 
> or not to allow women to fight for their country.  Many of the arguements
> against women fighting are based on sexist assumptions-not facts-
> about women's abilities.  These assumptions are similar to the racist 
> assumptions against desegregating the military.

  I remember the terrible hue and cry when Mills College was having such
terrible financial troubles that they threatened to admit men.  That really
shook loose the purse strings.  Luckily the students were saved from such
a terrible fate.

  The armed forces issue depends upon perspective.  Is it that women are
too weak ("female bashing") or that men are mere cannon fodder ("male
bashing")?  Undoubtedly many men resent that they have to register for
selective service while the women don't need to worry about such things.

> Let's not forget sexual harassment, a common form of female bashing.
> I am not saying that men do not get sexually harassed but that 
> sexual harassment is more of a problem for women.  Sexual harassment
> is used to exclude and degrade women in the workplace and academics.

  Sexual harassment can be "male bashing" or "female bashing" or other
forms that don't really bash one sex more than the other.  The only
incidents of sexual harassment I have personally seen in places where
I have worked have been targeted at men.  (I remember a group of ladies
who would loudly make references to a male employee's "big banana and
fuzzy coconuts" so that everyone in the area could hear them.  The general
manager took my aside one day to ask if that employee was sexually
harassing them.  Go figure.)

Newsgroups: soc.men
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: War on Fathers (was: StipU whatever
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 05:01:16 GMT

xenon@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu writes:

>What is going on in the divorce courts of America is nothing less than a 
>war against fathers and fatherhood, perpetrated by an unholy alliance of 
>self-righteous social workers, man-haters, and judges wallowing in the 
>egotistical fantasy of themselves as noble saviours of oh-so-grateful 
>women.  What they are creating is a nation of children without fathers, 
>and an ever-growing body of impoverished, disempowered, rootless and 
>angry men.  

Well, let's not misrepresent the data on this.  

Let's take family income at time t.  Say a divorce happens at time t.
How does that effect the income of men and women?  What is the ratio
of income in subsequent years to the income before the divorce?

                     Years after time t
                    1        3         5
                 -------------------------
women             .81      .97      1.01
men               .84      .99      1.03
(no divorce)     1.17     1.17      1.28

As you can see, women are economically hit harder by divorce than men are.
(They would both be better off if they could stay together.)

Also note that in 1987, a whopping 6.2% of divorced women were supposed
to recieve alimony payments.  

Child-support payments are supposed to be paid to about half (51.3% in 
1987) of the women who divorced with children under 21.  The average 
payment for one child in 1987 was $2,247/yr. For three children, the 
average payment was $3,368.  All of these figures have been *remarkably* 
stable since 1978.

rini

source: Child Support and Alimony: 1987.  US Bureau of the Census,
Current Population Reports.
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: weverka@spot.Colorado.EDU (Robert T. Weverka)
Subject: Height based wage inequity (was Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 11:20:33 GMT


My personal theory is that the total difference in career options
is due to a discrimination based on height, coupled with the fact that 
women are shorter on average.  US Presidents are on average much taller,
as are corporate executives. There is no gender discrimination, 
no glass ceiling for women.  It is all just a proven height discrimination.


It would therefore be prudent for the women's movement to join up
with the short people's rights groups to fight this inequity.
When short people have equal access to better career paths, women
will too.

-Ted
Newsgroups: soc.men