HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress)
Subject: Re: K-Mark Hostages
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 21:36:00 GMT

Aaron Hoffmeyer wrote:
   "Could someone please explain the "battered woman's" 
   defense plea?
   Does the above argument, when the sex of the 
   perpetrator is changed, refute that plea?"

Amen.  A man and a women where caught, on a first
offense, with a large amount of cocaine.
He goes to prison =FOR LIFE=.
She gets =2 YEARS= of real prison time.

Why isn't there a "financially raped man's" defense plea?
I can see it now:
   "He killed her but he's not going to jail
   because she forced him to work and took
   all his earnings."
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: ccbjr@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (charles.c.bahr..jr)
Subject: Re: Gender and bathing suits
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 17:48:41 GMT

In article <9208290650.AA08237@cs.utexas.edu> klassen@sol.UVic.CA (Melvin Klassen) writes:
>I've noticed an interesting difference between men and women
>when it comes to bathing suits.
> 
>On the beach, most women wear clothing which is skimpier 
>and more revealing than men.
> 
>Women tend to wear small, hugging, bathing suits,
>while men tend to wear shorts, which are baggy and long.
> 
>Why don't more men wear tight, revealing, bathing suits?
> 
>Why don't more men wear thong-style bathing suits,
>like the suits worn by the women on the beach-scenes
>of the NBC television show "Baywatch"?
>(Have you ever recorded the opening-scenes,
>and single-stepped through the recording,
>and seen all the mostly-bare female buttocks which are displayed?)
> 
>

I think the reason is simple.  In our culture, women
are still regarded as mere sex objects, on display for
men to ogle.  Men, on the other hand, are the wielders
of money and power, and are not supposed to attract women
based on appearance.  (How many times have you heard 
a women describe Henry Kissinger as sexy?)

I think the display of women as sex objects (objectifying
women) is debasing because it is so one-sided.  I don't
see any problem with sexy apparel for men or women, as 
long as it is somewhat uniform in application.

Personally, I can't understand why any guy would want to wear
boxer shorts at the beach.  Assuming that a particular beach
prohibits nudity, why would you want to wear much more than the 
minimum and go for the 18 inch inseam??  What are these guys hiding??
Why would anyone wear so much to swim, sun or play in the sand?

For interests of getting the most of the sun, and having the least
annoyance of wet bathing suit, I don't see why we should wear anything
at the beach or in our backyards.  Sometimes I wear a thong at
the beach, and in less casual situations, e.g., pool-party, I'll 
opt for some back coverage.

What annoys me is that if I wear a thong or even a conventional
bikini at some beaches, teenage boys will make rude comments as 
they pass by in their big baggy flour sacks.


In some ways, I think that the self-enforcement of "no sexy
suits allowed" by men is analogous to some of the
self-enforcement by women of "no careers allowed" 
in the vein of Marilyn Quayle's comments at the Repub. Convention.

Charlie Bahr


.sig
.disclaimer
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
From: tyger@netcom.com (Kitty in the Middle)
Subject: Re: Male bashing in other newsgroups
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 02:08:59 GMT
Organization:  I said WHAT!?!

robert@informix.com (Robert Coleman) writes:
>kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts) writes:
>
>>I think it is a pretty sad person who can't enjoy this.
>
>	I think it is a pretty *aware* person who can't enjoy this.

Sorry, but I'm with Ken...you have to be a pretty uptight person not to
be able to laugh at stuff like that Seminars for Men list. Both my SO
and I thought it was a hoot!

>Robert C.

   Tyger

-- 
      Kristen Kohlbecker    And I would choose to be with you
      tyger@netcom.com      That's if the choice were mine to make   
                            But you can make decisions too
      A Tyger and a Lady    And you can have this heart to break
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: re: Father Notification Reconsidered
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com
Date: 4 Sep 92 12:21:09 GMT
Organization: Electronic Data Systems, Unigraphics Division, Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: oakey

In article <1992Sep3.185929.9951@advtech.uswest.com>, steven@jaynes.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:
> 
> It's her body.  All the *potential* father donated was
> a pleasurable squirt.  It doesn't even make SENSE to suggest this when
> we're talking about a situation where the two aren't even spouses (in
> fact, it doesn't make any sense in any case).  

  While I can agree with the first part where the couple are not spouses or
in a committed relationship, your statement implying that it doesn't
make sense to notify a husband is an insult to every man who ever
married in order to start a family. You're saying that, no matter
what the wife may have promised regarding children prior to the marriage, 
it's okay for her to NOT tell her husband she is pregnant and then to
seek an abortion behind his back.

  One can hardly view such an ethical standard as in any way supportive of
the trust and mutual respect one normally considers to be at the heart of
any relationship.

  How can you justify discarding the husbands interests so callously?

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com  Middle-Aged Mutant Ninja Animator   |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| Preparations for the holiday weekend: Black Powder & White Lightening! |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Biological Sex Differences? ("Women only" excusable ?)
From: <RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Thursday, 10 Sep 1992 19:20:52 EDT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

-
-Another, more logical conclusion is that everyone who goes to college
-takes the SAT, but only those interested in mathematics (and with a
-higher ability in it) take college courses.  In other words, the group
-of people under scrutiny changes, making any comparison meaningless.
-
-Of course, this is a logical conclusion, and doesn't lay blame on someone,
-so I don't think most people would agree with it.
-
-Daniel Welch

I am sorry to disappoint you -  I agree!!

Rohit Parikh
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.feminism
From: slaury@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Susan Laury)
Subject: Re: Feminists ignore Cosmetics?
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 04:11:08 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.123507.16267@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis) writes:
>Am I the first man you've "met" who likes women without makeup?


Not at all ... In addition to the many net-responses I've had from
men insisting that they really do prefer women this way (and I believe
you!), my SO prefers me (and most women) without makeup. 

I hope I made myself clear -- I wasn't saying that men *should* prefer
women without makeup (in fact, I think I look better with a little
makeup, but I'm too lazy to wear it -- and I don't care that much
what others think -- except on a few occasions when I feel like playing
"dress up"). I also wasn't implying that all (or even most) men who
claim they prefer women without makeup are lying or mistaken. Only
that *some* state this falsely (for whatever reason) and that you
can't necessarily take the comment "I prefer women without makeup"
on face value -- if only because some women so skillfully apply makup
that they don't look as if they're wearing it!

Wow! Thanks for all the feedback everyone!

Sus.
-- 
And the speaking will get easier and easier. ... And at last you'll know with
surpassing certainty that only one thing is more frightening than speaking
your truth. And that is not speaking.
		--Naomi Wolf, Commencement Address, Scripps College
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: ad815@yfn.ysu.edu (John S. Kennedy)
Subject: Male Bashers
Reply-To: ad815@yfn.ysu.edu (John S. Kennedy)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 19:05:08 GMT


Down on my "home system", Tri-State Online, there is a "newsgroup" called
"Dear Jeanie" that evolved in short order from the "advice area" to the
"male/female dynamics" area and I think just about every male basher in the
Greater Cincinnati area has left a message in that area at one time or
another. 

It always leaves me wondering ... what could have possibly happened to some
of these women to make them hate men so much? 

And, quite possibily, a more important question -- what the heck do they
want?  Do they want legislation passed REQUIRING that women be paid as much
as men?

Also sometimes I almost feel like saying, "Well, as regretable as human
nature may be at times, alot of men find what's between a woman's legs to
be far more valuable than what's between her ears, even if she can find
ways to turn a 20% profit."

Speaking of which ... that's an idea ... if the income of every prostitute
on Earth, combined with the money and other services that "average" women
are able to obtain in exchange for sex, were figured into the salary
statistics, would women still be only making $0.60 to every dollar that
men were making?

          John
-- 
** John S. Kennedy (513) 541-3078 axinar@tso.uc.edu 72217.416@compuserve.com
The opinions expressed in this message are those of the person speaking,
and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of St. E's Med Center, or the
NPTN, but Mr. Kennedy's opinions SHOULD be made federal law!
Xref: sparky soc.men:16066 soc.women:16257 alt.child-support:3077
From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: EuStress Has Trouble With Words
Date: 8 Sep 92 00:26:52 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Sep7.094652.3937@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>In article <1992Sep7.001738.5101@smds.com>, rh@smds.com (Richard Harter) writes:

>> Actually, there is something fundamentally wrong with a system where
>> officials [judges] with the full punitive power of the state behind
>> them make binding decisions "for the good of parties involved" without
>> making an independent determination of the facts.

>Mr. EuStress also claims he only makes $4000 a year.  Seems to me that either
>he is lying about his income (where upon the IRS would be VERY interested in
>him), or he is really just laying around doing nothing.  $4000 a year comes
>down to $80 a week.  Working in Burger King or McD's, he'd make at least twice
>that!

That's as it may be.  I wouldn't be surprised if Mr. EuStress is a candidate
for the funny farm -- his postings do seem to have a bizarre air about them.
However my point was not about whether one particular person is telling
the truth, or has received a fair shake.  In an individual case, when
someone yells foul, one has to look at particulars.  My point was that
a system where rulings are made without ascertaining the situation is
unjust, even if it produces a fair result by chance.
-- 
Richard Harter: SMDS Inc.  Net address: rh@smds.com Phone: 508-369-7398 
US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742.    Fax: 508-369-8272
In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.dads-rights
From: bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician)
Subject: Re: Do Men Have Reproductive Rights?
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 92 10:25:40 GMT
Organization: Society for the Preservation of E. coli

Jon, I'm a bit surprised that you listed ACES in your list of groups
who claim that fathers are nothing more than walking wallets.

It was from ACES that I learned that female NCP's who owe
child-support are just as likely as men to be behind on their
payments...and for the same reasons.  It would seem to me that any
fighting they might do for "retro-active child support" would be
without regard to gender except that it's statistically likely that
it's a male who is paying child support.  I recall seeing a _Larry
King, Live_ that dealt with child support.  A man in New Jersey was
put in prison for not paying child support, yet New Jersey law
prohibits "debtor's prison."  There was a woman from ACES on and he
made some remarks about her being "anti-father" which caused her to
comment that female NCP's had the same likelihood of missing payments
as male NCP's.

Now, obviously they might take a different tack in reality than they
do in policy....

-- 
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
From: charleen@ADS.COM (Charleen Bunjiovianna)
Subject: Great Moments in Equality
Organization: The Original Estrogen-Crazed Lust Bunnies
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 16:28:34 GMT

In a posting to one of the alt.sex.* groups, a woman tells how she
dialed a random number to solicit a man for anonymous phone sex, and
how offended she was by the man's language (he called her a "bitch").

Charleen
Xref: sparky soc.men:16034 soc.women:16224 alt.child-support:3064
From: woody@wolves.uucp (Woody Muller)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: EuStress Has Trouble With Words
Date: 6 Sep 92 10:44:45 GMT
Organization: Wolves Den UNIX, Durham NC
X-Md4-Signature: 49ab5b85934f9022552dddfd1a600547

In <1992Sep5.031849.11534@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:

>Forcing a man to pay child support for children that he will NEVER, EVER
>SEE is financial rape.

Eustress has apparently never gone to court to fight for his rights
to see his kids.  Therefore, the court hasn't had a chance to even
consider holding the mother in contempt.  You, of all people, should
appreciate the value of telling your side of the story, and not bending
over like Eustress and expecting the court to decide fairly based
on the opposition's evidence alone.

-- 
woody@wolves.durham.nc.us
"Nothing in human affairs is worth any great anxiety."  -Plato
Xref: sparky soc.men:16369 soc.women:16538 alt.child-support:3162
From: kls4344@ritvax.isc.rit.edu (Person in flux)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.rape,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: I'm NOT your "family values" slave
Date: 12 Sep 92 16:16:50 GMT
Reply-To: kls4344@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology

In article <1992Sep10.221543.13529@u.washington.edu>, 
hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress) writes:

>    "fornicate"? You're sick.  You are the lowest
>    form of toxic slime.  I will not be
>    you "family values" slave.

Since Mr. EuStress has resorted to ad hominem attacks, he and I obviously have
nothing to discuss.  

Katie
From: ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Bashing Behaviors
Date: 12 Sep 92 15:20:46 GMT
Organization: TFS

dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber) writes:
>
>No, I think you missed his point.  The point was that when men pass such
>lists, women get offended.  Yet women are allowed open season on men.  Try
>making a little tour through the greeting cards in your drugstore sometime
>and count the number of male-bashing cards.  I don't recall ever having seen
>the converse.  There are also coffee mugs, bumper stickers, etc...
>

This occurs to me too. There is a 'beer vs. women' T-shirt, and that's
about all I've seen vs.-women, not like I'm looking or anything.
A lot of noise from (some) women whereas I don't get the same impression
about men.

I suggest:
'male culture' in the large is actually inclusive, curiously.
There was a backlash against the introduction of words like
'chairwoman' on the idea that 'chairman' was sufficient.
I think the reason for this is that men implicitly included
women in 'mankind', for example, without thinking about it,
and also offered "parity" - gee, anyone can become the chairman -
Jane Doe, Chairman of X Corp. and men would not see this unusual.
The backlash would say, why should women have their _own_ word,
when "men have to share their word with women", and I don't think
this image rose up in consciousness very much.

So the point is men implicitly think of themselves as being WITH women;
there wouldn't be F-bashing lists because this bashes partner. The
undercurrent of negative stereotypes is always there for both.

One other unfortunate idea is the men's movement is fairly young.
When women were beginning to see themselves as separate, the men were
now other and subject to 'bashing', while men did not "know what was
going on". Now men are separating too and maybe you will get the
battle of the negative stereotypes.
Xref: sparky soc.men:16405 soc.women:16572 alt.child-support:3181 alt.dads-rights:2268
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Date: 14 Sep 92 18:40:44 GMT
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory

In article <1992Sep14.161256.28242@news.nd.edu> slarsen@monet.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:
>In article <1992Sep11.233552.8746@u.washington.edu> hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress) writes:
>>Susan Larsen wrote:
>>     "There are practical reasons for a father to 
>>     have knowledge of his children,  too.  
>>     These children could make claims against the 
>>     father's estate, for example."
>>
>>Does Sue think Dads should be made to be money slaves?
>
>Pick on someone else, Mr. EuStress.  I'm too busy earning a 
>living and supporting my child.
>
>Sue Larsen
>slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu

	P.S.  I certainly not!   my/our wills specifically
	include "the children of *this* marriage.



-- 
	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
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Subject: Re: Impact of the absent father
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 00:55:32 GMT

gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:

>Consumers Report claimed that condoms are 85% effective.  In other words,
>over one year of using condoms, there is 15% probability for an unwanted
>pregnancy.  In 7 years, the expectation is more than 1...

Condoms *do* fail.  That is why men need to stop and check them before
they ejaculate.  If the condom is broken, change it, then continue with ...

						--  Michal

Xref: sparky soc.men:16090 soc.women:16274
From: stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Wedding vows (was: Father Notification )
Date: 8 Sep 92 14:45:59 GMT
Followup-To: soc.men,soc.women
Distribution: na

ljf writes
 
+ How did she break her word?  Are there explicit (or even implicit)
+ details in marriage vows that suggest that a woman agrees to bear
+ children at any time when she agrees to marry?  (I'm sitting here
+ thinking of all the weddings I've been to and I've yet to hear any
+ vows about agreeing to have children.)

Conversely, I've not heard the groom promising to support the bride
after a divorce, either. Lots of backroom discussions go on - stuff
we're not privy to.

Or at least it's supposed to be that way. I would imagine that the
possibility of offspring will be discussed, along with finances,
and who does the dishes/laundry/lawn.

K'Char
From: kurts@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Kurt Strain)
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 15:43:10 GMT
Subject: Re: Male bashing in other newsgroups
Organization: Outpost 1T
Newsgroups: soc.men

In soc.men, colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:




>   SEMINARS FOR MEN:
>
>   Once again, the female staff will be offering courses to men of all
>   marital status.  Please note, the names of some of the courses have
>   been changed.  Attendance in at least 10 of the following courses is
>   mandatory.
>
>    1.  Combatting Stupidity
>    2.  You Too Can Do Housework
>    3.  PMS - Learning When to Keep Your Mouth Shut
>    4.  How to Fill an Ice Tray
>    5.  We do not Want Sleazy Underthings for Christmas.  GIVE US MONEY.
>    6.  Understanding the Female Response to your Coming in Drunk at 3am
>    7.  Wonderful Laundry Techniques (formerly called "Don't Wash my Silks")
>    8.  Parenting - No, it Doesn't End with Conception.
>    9.  How not to Act like an Ass, When you are Obviously Wrong
>   10.  Get a Life - Learn to Cook.
>   11.  Spelling - Even you can get it right
>   12.  You - The Weaker Sex
>   13.  Reasons to give Flowers
>   14.  How to stay awake after sex
>   15.  Why it is Unacceptable to relieve yourself anywhere but the Washroom
>   16.  Garbage - Getting it to the Curb.
>   17.  #101 - You Can Fall Asleep With Out It - If You Really Try
>        #102 - The Morning Dilemma - If It's Awake, Take a Shower
>   18.  I'll Wear it if I Damn Well Please
>   19.  How to put the toilet lid down (formerly called "No, It's Not A Bidet")
>   20.  Give me a Break - Why we know your excuses are B.S.
>   21.  The Weekend and Sports are NOT Synonymous
>   22.  How to Go Shopping with your Mate without Getting Lost
>   23.  The Remote Control - Overcoming your Dependency
>   24.  Romanticism - Other Ideas Besides Sex
>   25.  Helpful Posture Hints for Couch Potatoes
>   26.  Changing your Underwear - It Really Works
>   27.  How Not To Act Younger Than Your Children
>   28.  You Too Can Be a Designated Driver
>   29.  Male Bonding - Leaving your Friends at Home
>   30.  Fluffing the Blankets after Releasing Gas is NOT Necessary
>   31.  The Attainable Goal - Omitting !@#$&$ From Your Vocabulary
>   32.  Honest, You Don't Look Like Mel Gibson - Especially When Naked
>

I saw this passed around at work.  If it were done in reverse and were a
woman bashing joke it would have been serious sexual harassment.  As it is,
it's just good politically-correct affirmative action humor.
From: arcane@cybernet.cse.fau.edu (Kendrick Davis)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Men having babies
Date: 8 Sep 92 18:16:49 GMT
Organization: Cybernet BBS, Boca Raton, Florida



 It was put to our Gay and Lesbian Youth Group this question:
 
 
  "What would the world be like if men could become pregnant? "


    We'd like to hear your thoughts on it!!! (grin)


      Thanks,

                           -< ARCANE >-
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: puter@no1home.nashvil.ingr.com (PuterDude)
Subject: Re: Men having babies
Organization: Organized? Just look at my desk!
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 13:41:58 GMT

 arcane@cybernet.cse.fau.edu (Kendrick Davis) writes:
>
> It was put to our Gay and Lesbian Youth Group this question:
> 
>  "What would the world be like if men could become pregnant? "

Next week I'll bring up at the Pregnant Men's Group...

"What would the world be like if there were no Gay and Lesbian
Youth Groups?"

	....and let you know.

"What *IF* your knees bent the other way? What would a chair
look like?"  -- Gallagher

-- 
Puter	puter@no1home.nashvil.ingr.com	.sig by Generic Labels
(Put irritating title here)		(Put phone # here.)
(Put obnoxious quote here. Please make it as long as possible.)