HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: puter@no1home.nashvil.ingr.com (PuterDude)
Subject: Re: Pay Discrimination for Women?
Organization: None, today. Thank you.
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1992 20:15:42 GMT

 stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul) writes:
>Dan Welch writes
>
>+ Let's get the ball rolling!  Hire a wife today!
>
>Probably be cheaper and less trying than being married?? [1]
>
>K'Char
>
>[1] I've never been married, so I don't know the costs.

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.

-- 
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.)
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Woody Allen Charged With Molesting his Kids in Custody Battle
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 16:45:10 GMT

Woody Allen said Tuesday that he was falseley accused of molesting his two
youngest children in a cheme concoted by his ex-lover, Mia Farrow,
to retain custody of the kids.

"This is an unconscionable and gruesomely damaging manipulation of innocent
chidren for vindictive and self-serving motives", the filmmaker told
reporters."

....

Allen, 56, filed a lawsuit against Farrow last week demanding custody of
their three children.

Newsgroups: soc.men
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Biological Sex Differences?
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 14:57:09 GMT

I just finished writing, among other things:

>>"All sex is rape."--Kathleen MacKinnon, University of Michigan School of Law

That should be CATHERINE MacKinnon, I believe.  I was reading from something a
friend copied for me, but I'll take the responsibility and the flames for not
properly checking my sources...

Imagine that!  Someone willing to take responsibility for their own actions
in today's society!

Tim Irvin   j056600@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
Xref: sparky soc.men:15223 soc.women:15499 alt.child-support:2804
From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: You can't (financially) rape the willing
Date: 20 Aug 92 01:13:07 GMT
Reply-To: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress) writes:

->   Oh yea, I forgot, Bob (a.k.a. "Let's have more kids") 
->   is also a "forced family" benefactor -- because, for him, 
->   it's a choice and not slavery.
-> 
->   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."

Mr. Relf, it is pretty silly to send me messages in the mail which
you're going to post anyway. 

I'm surprised to read your accusation, considering that you repeatedly
came to me for advice on terminating your parental rights/responsibility,
and got as much help as I could give. I spent time at the law library
for you making sure how to see to it that an agreement made in Utah
could be binding here. Looking up OSE policies on out of state termina-
tions to ensure that they too would honor the stipulated order. I even
drafted the texts for communications between you and your ex's lawyer,
a brief, and a couple of different drafts of the actual order/agreement
for you to use as examples.

I repeatedly suggested that you get a lawyer instead of representing
yourself, both because I'm NOT a lawyer and can only suggest, but also
to ensure that you would have a reasonably ironclad order at the end of
it all.

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; instead, your wish
is to antagonize those around you until they have no choice but to hand
you your walking papers, or in your ex's case, throw the book at you.

---

As a side note to Alan Yasutovitch: This, Alan, is why people don't
like to volunteer info, do research, or make effort for net.people.
You can be pretty sure that I won't try again. 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.


---
Bob Kirkpatrick, Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA
bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us
From: stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: mandatory service
Date: 20 Aug 92 03:48:00 GMT
Followup-To: soc.men,soc.women
Organization: Murasami Labs

In article <4069@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us>, shomer@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us
wrote:

> stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul) writes:

> > [...] If we are to 
> > have equality and progress, then things have to be determined
> > irregardless of the maleness/femaleness of the person(s) involved.
> 
> If I start out rich and you start out poor, and the law treats us equally,
> I'll probably stay rich and you'll probably stay poor. If "justice" means 
> that you should (at least) get into the middle class, "blind" justice
> won't be just. That's why I support affirmative action. 

You miss the point. So what if I'm poor? I just want a *fair* shake. That
fair shake allows me the opportunity to MAKE other opportunities. Perhaps
one day I'll be your boss and pay your salary. Just 'cause you're rich
today don't mean it'll be true tomorrow - and tomorrow you may not get
that fair shake because of your (now) former life. Is that fair??

> > One of the bastions of female privilege is in the custody of their
> > children, simply because of their sex. It's neither fair, nor just,
> > but I suppose in your scheme of things, it's ok.

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

Gee, that's strange. I thought that men where encouraged NOT to
contest custody, as they would end up with a long, drawn out legal
battle, costing in the tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars,
and with less than a 50% chance of winning? Perhaps I am mistaken. There
have been victories here and there, but when one has to, for all intents
and purposes, show that the mother is INCOMPETENT, then something is
way wrong.

> Men seem more concerned with their property rights over the kid. 

Perhaps because the legal system does little to enforce "visitation"
that it does grant to the father? If the only relationship that one
has with one's offspring is financial then it makes some sense that
that person will be more concerned with property (financial) rights.

Doesn't surprise me in the least when dear ol' dad becomes the First
National Bank of Daddy. 

K'Char
From: jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Some Politically Incorrect questions
Date: 16 Aug 92 16:13:57 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.

In article <10352@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul) writes:
>Dave Eisen writes
>
>+ Or Loren, do you know lots of women who would be happy to
>+ marry an unemployed man with few marketable job skills? Do 
>+ you know lots of women who are looking for a man they can 
>+ support for the rest of their lives?
>
>Say, maybe he can introduce me to a couple of 'em. I've always wanted
>to be supported in a fashion to which I could learn to be comfortable
>with.
>
>K'Char


 NO MORE TUPPERWARE PARTIES!!  How about "SNAP-ON TOOL" parties. 
Yes, we'll ride are Harley's to different shops, exchanging ideas
and purchasing new tools, air wrenches, tool boxes. 

 NO MORE AFTERNOON TEAS while the kids are in school. We'll step
on out to the "LOCH NESS" bar for a little lunch and brewski's 
and watch the titty show.

 If she won't give me fun money, I'll just cut her off and screw
the hell out of Sally the snap on rep.

Tongue in cheek... if ya know what I mean,
Jon
Xref: sparky soc.men:15052 soc.women:15324 soc.penpals:1738
From: taralee@zooid.guild.org (tara lee)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,soc.penpals
Subject: Re: DANGER!!!!
Date: 16 Aug 92 17:05:07 GMT

From: casmith@acs.harding.edu
>I am posting this to warn the public of a great, grave danger that lies 
>ahead. Bill Clinton is running for president....if he gets it we will 
>be doomed to a great depression! I give this warning because I am from
>Arkansas and I have seen what he is like. The press in this case is not
>digging into Clintons record or life, therefore they are giving him 
>glamorus reviews when he really deserves mud. You think that I am exagerating,well I'm not in the past ten years Clinton has raised Arkansas taxes by 
>more than 250%, most of which is payed by middle classed Farmers! Clinton
>has consistantly lied to the Arkansas public and because of a large pop.
>of people with little or no education, he has gotten away with it! You
>say look at his education record, well lets do. Clinton has done nothing
>for the Ark. Educational process except make more paper work for teachers
>and close smaller schools. I have 2 aunts that are teachers here and neither
>one of them like him nor do they support him. You don't realise what Clinton
>is like until you have seen him in action for a long time. I think I can 
>truthfully say that Clinton would make the even a typical Used Car salesman
>seem like a saint. No, I am not a Republican trying to discredit Clinton.
>I am just an honest person who doesn't want to see a snake elected to
>office. Thanks for your time.
>                                               Craig A. Smith
>Bill Clinton sells snake oil!
 
 
 Oh my lord.... 
 
           I think I'm having flashbacks.. Someone please tell me that I
really have seen this before and that my brain is going into some sort of
hyperdrive.
 
          Taralee
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support
From: kdawn@nyx.cs.du.edu (karen dawn)
Subject: Re: Sex Insurance
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 02:07:03 GMT

jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress) writes:

>  The government should use our tax money
>  to insure people`s sexual contact.
>  If a child is born then the insurer 
>  (the government) should reward money
>  to the primary care giver.  The Insurer
>  would do its damndest to prevent conception.
>  Thus men would not be made slaves to women.
nonsense!
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: mandatory service
Date: 17 Aug 92 21:04:50 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Aug17.185228.9476@ads.com>, charleen@ADS.COM (Charleen Bunjiovianna) writes:

> 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 think of one right off the bat.  I saw a commercial for it just
the other night.  It showed this young man behind bars.  It said, "When you
turn 18, you have one chance to not become a criminal".  Then we're told about
how every young man must register for the draft.  How nice of you, Uncle Sam!

Terry "It's not just a bad idea, it's the law!" Wood
-- 
        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
From: shomer@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: mandatory service
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 21:39:51 PDT
Reply-To: shomer@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us

In article <2A8EA125.6055@orion.oac.uci.edu>, 
cedman@714-725-3165.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman) writes:
> 
> You are comparing apples and oranges. Rape is universally condemned. Vast  
> amounts of money are spent on rape prevention, prosecution, counseling aso. And  
> despite everybody trying it appears to be hard to stamp out. The draft is a  
> policy of the US government which could be eliminated by a simple act of  
> political will. That this does not happen clearly shows a societal 
> sexist bias against men.

Of course you're right that conscription and rape are not comparable.
(Although one could argue that government policy is not unequivocally
anti-rape; if it were, the law would not make convictions for sexual
assaults so much harder to obtain than convictions for non-sexual assault.)
The point I was trying to make, not too clearly it seems, is that on any
number of issues one must decide whether to "stand up and be 
counted." So, for example, although I didn't register for the draft I do pay 
my war taxes. We can't stand up every time, though I admire 
people who do lots of standing. I don't expect women to 
make the tremendous sacrifice (i.e., giving up a college education) over 
this particular issue.

Also, abolishing draft registration requires more than "a simple act
of political will." Politics is a wee bit more complex than that.

> > [Earlier I (shomer) wrote:]
> >  Men have plenty
> > of  privilege; why should we resent one of the few that
> > women have? 
> 
> _What_ legal privileges do men have ? The only one I can think of is that only  
> men are allowed to serve in some parts of the armed services and that one is  
> under heavy attack. It also is quite a small one, compared to the countless  
> privileges which women enjoy either by judical fiat or law.

I didn't have legal privilege in mind, but this raises an important point.
Patriarchal privilege is largely extra-legal, in the so-called private 
sphere and in public relationships (at work, for instance) where the 
legal system can only partly regulate behavior. I think one of the great
contributions of feminism was to show why the public/private distinction in 
American political thought is fundamentally false and misleading. 
The antifeminist wing of the men's movement seems (now that I stop to think
about it) strangely legalistic given the strong New Age component to their
thinking. 

Excluding women from combat military occupational specialties 
in peacetime is certainly a privilege for men, but excluding them during
wartime is a privilege for women. How one balances the two probably depends
more on what you think about war and the justice of the wars your country
fights than on what you think about gender justice. 
-- 
_________________________________
Steve Homer  shomer@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us
From: carroll@cs.uiuc.edu (Alan M. Carroll)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Woody and Mia
Keywords: thank heaven for little girls
Date: 21 Aug 92 21:49:12 GMT
Organization: Technophiles Inc. - Engineers with Attitude

[I've trimmed the cross posting a wee bit]

In article <holly.174@mailhub.scf.lmsc.lockheed.com>, holly@mailhub.scf.lmsc.lockheed.com (Holly Wise) writes:
> In Mia's shoes, I might be so angry as to make the other accusations too

Now that's certainly taking the high moral ground. Revenge at any price.

> The girl will obviously dump him (after missing her relationship 
> with her siblings and mother).

No girl would ever choose her boyfriend over her mother and siblings?
I think you need a reality check.

-- 
Alan M. Carroll          "Weren't there yams involved, too?" - J. Ockerbloom
Epoch Development Team   
Urbana Il.               "I hate shopping with the reality-impaired" - Susan
Xref: sparky soc.men:15224 soc.women:15500
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Women and makeup...
Date: 20 Aug 92 03:30:19 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <1992Aug19.163724.1@mdcbbs.com> rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:
:| In the Middle East, women are raised to always cover their faces with  |
:| viels. Modern feminists point to this practice as proof of how these   |
:| women are oppressed. Yet here in the Western (so called) Civilized     |
:| countries, women are raised to cover their faces with cosmetics, to    |
:| the tune of 50 billion dollars a year. In this regard, American women  |
:| are just as oppressed as their eastern sisters while having to pay far |
:| more for the priviledge. Why do the feminists pay such scant attention |
:| to this most visible abuse of women's skin, health, and wallet?        |

	False analogy.

	The strict Muslims believe that women should somehow be hidden
from view.

	The purpose of makeup, on the other hand, is decorative.

	Some feminists _do_ complain about extreme standards of
beauty. See Naomi Wolf's _The Beauty Myth_, Susan Faludi's _Backlash_,
and even Gloria Steinem's _Revolution from Within_.

	One last thing.

	Mike Rivero, why do you think that some men wear toupees?

/Loren
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Some Politically Incorrect questions
Organization: LLNL
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 07:50:51 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.092235.1@mdcbbs.com> rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:

>  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?

	Proof, please.

>  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.

	Then why don't you become a househusband, if being a
house-spouse is such an elixir of life.

Xref: sparky soc.men:15142 soc.women:15409 alt.child-support:2786 alt.dads-rights:2020
From: arsmith@nyx.cs.du.edu (Alan Smith)
Subject: Re: Brian Siano Posts Private E-Mail (was: Robert Sheaffer's Loy
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 23:28:35 GMT


We had a girl on alt.sex (Yes, occasionally girls *do* post to alt.sex)
who used to post her outgoing mail.  Freaked me out.  She used to write
things like "Are you Bisexual? I am.  Would you ever make love to a short,
brown-haired female?"  Whoa.

So posting a somewhat paranoid loyalty test is not the worst thing someone
can do.

Big Al.  Oh, by the way, copies of "Big Al's Loyalty test" are available
on request.  (It's funny.  Take my word for it.)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support,alt.abortion.inequity
From: walsh@starbd.enet.dec.com (Thomas Walsh)
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Reply-To: walsh@starbd.enet.dec.com (Thomas Walsh)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 15:25:47 GMT


In article <mDNcPB1w165w@dogear.spk.wa.us>, bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick) writes:
>yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) writes:
>> 	But the difference *is* that if a pregnancy occurs (whoever's
>> 	"fault" it is) at that point a woman has material say in
>> 	weather a child is born.  A man has none any more.
>> 
>> 	(BTW, I am not pro abortion.  I'm making a point)
>> 
>> 	WOMAN:  Choice 1:	"mistake" of getting pregnant.
>> 		Choice 2:	"mistake" of having the child.
>> 
>> 	MAN	Choice 1:	"mistake" of impregnanting.
>> 		Choice 2:	NONE
>> 
>> 	The man only has a "choice" to make a mistake once.
>
>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
>
>MAN:    Choice 1:  Participating in a pregnancy
>        Choice 2:  Dealing with Choice #1
>

It is more accurate to say 

WOMAN:  Choice 1:  Participating in becomming pregnant
        Choice 2:  Dealing with Choice #1

MAN:    Choice 1:  Participating in a pregnancy
        Choice 2:  Dealing with the woman's choice #2


--
___________________________________________________________________________
Thomas Walsh 		walsh@via.enet.dec.com		Nashua, NH

:opinions do not necessarily reflect those of my employers
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Tax Breaks for Decent
X-To: TED KRUEGER
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 01:18:00 GMT

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes...
TK> Just for your information, College graduate females, in the US, since
TK> 1980, earn $1.01 for every $1.00 that their male counterparts earn.


Where did you get this reference?  I am not disbelieving you ; I am just
asking for a reference so that I can use it when I debate with others.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * If you smoke after sex, you're doing it too fast.
Xref: sparky soc.men:15300 soc.women:15574 alt.child-support:2829 alt.abortion.inequity:3204 alt.dads-rights:2044 talk.abortion:32819
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.dads-rights,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pre-conception contract
Keywords: conception sex contract child support abortion
Date: 21 Aug 92 15:03:15 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Aug21.062124.2344@cis.ohio-state.edu> fabian@gecko.cis.ohio-state.edu (anjanette louise fabian) writes:
>
>	I posted this idea to alt.politics.clinton when the abortion debate
>was raging, but I think I'll post it here too.

I posted this same idea to talk.abortion last year.  The
"holier-than-thou" pro-lifers laughed at it.  Good luck, it's the best
solution there is.


Gordon
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
From: baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Woody Allen Charged With Molesting his Kids in Custody Battle
Date: 20 Aug 92 16:32:55 GMT
Organization: BT North America, San Jose CA.

In article <1992Aug19.232305.17467@u.washington.edu>, jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress) writes:
|>    Woody's new lover is 21 -- not 18.

The paper I read this morning says that the daughter in question (diq) is
a Korean with no birth certificate. 21 is the most commonly reported age 
for her.

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. 



-- 
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
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: It isn't slavery
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 15:53:37 GMT

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).

Hmm.  Well, if you don't want soc.* input, why are you xposting here?

Xref: sparky soc.men:15110 soc.women:15379 alt.child-support:2778 alt.dads-rights:2016