HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Tax Breaks for Decent White Folks
Date: 30 Jul 92 21:48:58 GMT
Distribution: na

In article <1992Jul30.160847.3127@javelin.sim.es.com>  
biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel) writes:
+ dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dave Eisen) writes:

[editorial removed]

+ >Boy am I pissed.
+ 
+ Why? I read it as a clever parody, sarcasm incarnate. Perhaps the
+ author didn't intend it as such, but the piece is quite funny.

You don't find such parody concerning blacks...err...African-Americans
on the editorial pages. The reason to be upset is not in the piece itself,
but rather with the attitude displayed by the editors: men are trashable,
as are Asians, but not women, blacks, hispanics, etc.

K'Char
From: mikep@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Mike Powell)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 02:35:53 GMT
Subject: Re: How much $$ is enough?
Organization: HP Santa Rosa Site (NMD MTA MWTD)
Newsgroups: soc.men


	What we are talking about here is a career change.... from
	whatever (nursing for example) to the career of parent...

	If I decided to change my career (or by poor planning on my part,
	I was compelled to change my career), but then years later decided
	to go back to my former career.... how in blazes could I 
	POSSIBLY expect someone (mate, taxpayers, etc.) to PAY *ME*
	for the way I handled my career path?

	AMAZING!
	(and very 90's.... "the decade of entitlements")

	-Mike-
From: luden@lehigh.edu (Dean E. Nelson)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: A question about getting "asked out"
Date: 23 Jul 92 19:11:16 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University Computing Center

In article <1665@aviary.Stars.Reston.Unisys.COM> 
stine@Stars.Reston.Unisys.COM (John P. Stine x7381) writes:

>One theory is that a man placed into this position (the approachee) 
>may assume that the man making the approach (the approacher) thought 
>that the approachee was homosexual, and given the stereotypes
>normally associated with homosexual males, takes strong offense at
>the resulting insinuation.  The approachee may indeed perceive
>it as an insult to his masculinity.

I had the occasion of refusing many passes by men when I was younger
(and for some unknown reason attractive to homosexual men).  I never
felt that the approacher thought I was homosexual, but was willing to
take the chance that I might be curious enough to go for it.  I never
took it as an insult, nor a complement, since I have never felt sexually
attracted to another man and having that quality is not something I
thought of as desireable or undesireable.  The attribute was simply
something I had no concept of.

>Unfortunately (or fortunately), the stereotypes are quickly becoming
>the exception rather than the rule.  The approacher probably thought
>that he was paying the approachee a compliment, rather than trying
>to insult him or question his masculinity.

I tend to think that the approacher simply wanted to have sex with me.
That is something I didn't want to do and told them.  They all took no
for an answer, end of story.

>I'd value your thoughts on this issue.

I think there are a lot of men like me who have never felt a sexual 
attraction for other men and simply can't relate to offers of sexual 
intimacy from another male.  Whatever insult or complement they may extract 
from the exchange comes from ethical issues about the morality of homosexual 
relations, not from the shared feelings of common desires.

Dean Nelson den0@lehigh.edu
From: datri@convex.com (Anthony A. Datri)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,alt.folklore.urban,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Ed Nilges and Snuff Films?
Date: 22 Jul 92 05:02:51 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

>You've been reading too much MacKinnon.  No such thing as snuff films.
>At least, none have ever been documented.

It may be a stretch, but I recently saw a program on a local public station
that included explicit footage from the Holocaust.
-- 

======================================================================8--<
From: stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: soc.feminism
Date: 31 Jul 92 01:56:12 GMT
Distribution: na

In article <1992Jul30.231823.29183@ccu.umanitoba.ca> kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca  
(Kenneth John Aarts) writes:
+ One of the moderators soc.feminism told me that they had very few  
complaints
+ about the way that group is moderated.  I found that surprising.

Not really. I gave up reading it once I realized they where going to
run it the way they saw fit and nothing was going to change their
minds.

BTW, that was in reguard to a political ad posted and accepted there.
Something that I felt was inappropriate in a moderated group.

K'Char
From: kamchar@ibm.cl.msu.edu (SunCat)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Feminis
Keywords: that fhe wuck ?
Date: 28 Jul 92 20:58:11 GMT
Organization: Michigan State University

In article <1992Jul25.181710.28667@leland.Stanford.EDU>  
farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
[deleted]
> As many posters have noted, the model for AIDS treatment (and HIV
> infection prevention) in the US has been based on what worked for
> white gay men.  This model is not working for women and other groups.
> One of the local TV stations recently reported on the survival rate of
> men vs. women after the diagnosis of AIDS.  Something like 30% of the
> men died within two years, while something like 50% of the women died.
> For the longest time, women of childbearing age were automatically
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> excluded from trials for experimental drugs for fear the drugs may
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> harm a fetus.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> AIDS is a problem for all of us, but not all of us have the needs or
> respond to the same programs.
[!] Did I read this right?  Women who were not pregnant but were of  
child-bearing age were excluded from clinical trials because it may harm a  
fetus not yet conceived?!  Who wrote these guidelines?  When was this?  

=========SunCat++++     | kamchar@ibm.cl.msu.edu
"Society is in conspiracy against the manhood of every one of its members.  
Society is a joint-stock company in which the members agree, for the 
better securing of his bread to each shareholder, to surrender the liberty of 
the eater."
--Ralph Waldo Emerson
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Yet Another AA Argument
Organization: my opinions only
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 02:16:49 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.214058.8151@colorado.edu>
fedrick@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Kelvin W. Fedrick) writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.000935.2109@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:

>>I'd say a better indicator than the educational level of the parents
>>is the importance they attach to education.
>
> I said I wasn't going to do this but .... I think I trust what the
> experts who spent years tracking families have to say than your
> opinion on this. Don't you think that the parents educational level
> just *might* have an effect on the importance they attach to education.

Yes, I think those two are highly correlated.  I also think that it's
much easier to quantify the educational level of the parents, so
that's what gets studied.  It's hard to quantify the attitude of the
parents, so it gets studied and reported on less.

>>Why only to minorities?  There are lots of other people who could
>>benefit as much from such "pump-priming".  Why not provide it to all
>>of them?
>
> Hwaaahahaha. I've been patiently waiting for someone to say this. There
> is absolutely no reason it should be for minorities only and I have
> never said this. There are indeed lots of people who need help. Your
> idea, however, seems to be to equalize lack of opportunity by taking
> away the gains that AA has given minorities. If you would like to focus
> on equalizing opportunity for those in need by giving assistance to
> others not covered by AA at a level that matches their need, I would not
> have any problem with it.

I want to eliminate AA because it targets the wrong people (well, it
targets a lot of the right people and some of the wrong people).  I'd
replace it with a program that targets only the right people.

You suggest that AA be supplemented.  So now we provide benefits to
(i) everybody who requires them, and (ii) everybody who is a member of
a designated minority.  Why include group (ii)?

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Xref: sparky soc.men:13969 soc.women:14402 alt.censorship:6517 alt.politics.correct:4897
From: revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.censorship,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: P.C. Professors Try to Censor Anti-Feminist Book
Keywords: Paglia's "Sexual Personae"
Date: 31 Jul 92 01:51:12 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system


        (Material regarding Tavris's book deleted.)

        In about a month or two, the next issue of _The Humanist_ will be 
running my review of Tavris's "The Mismeasure of Woman." It functions as a 
summary of her main points, with a few other bits thrown in for perspective. 
So, if anyone wants to read a summary before buying the book, give it a few 
weeks.

        BTW, I have a policy of not reposting my articles until the 
issue's off the stands. (Sort of helps me in my delusion that the incenive to 
read my column is strong enough to get people to BUY the thing. But hey, 
we're all entitled to our fantasies. And one day, I WILL Rule Europe! 
Muahahahahaha!!!)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian "Rev. P-K" Siano                                  revpk@cellar.org
Xref: sparky soc.men:13858 soc.women:14297 misc.legal:15107 alt.child-support:2296 alt.dads-rights:1649
From: jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Date: 29 Jul 92 21:10:57 GMT
Reply-To: jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress)
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Washington

> She will not get money from me!!! -- archaic quote from Mr. EuStress
> Stick to your opinions, but let's try to be objective. Ok? -- Bob Kirkpatrick

    No.

    I don't have to stick to my opions --
    I'm free to change them anytime I want.
    When I wrote the above quote to Bob,
    I did have a different opinion.  Bob,
    things change with time.  Courts are
    much less likely to change -- while
    I change whenever I want.
       My ex is no longer an issue with me.
    You, Bob, wanted to make her an issue,
    I didn't -- that's where we disagreed.
       I think Bob has more than a slight
    dislike for feminists or any other form
    of "liberal" thought.
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,alt.folklore.urban,misc.legal
From: stevew@teleride.on.ca (Stephen M. Webb)
Subject: Re: Ed Nilges and Snuff Films?
Organization: Teleride Sage Ltd.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 15:46:45 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.173616.2728@dscomsf.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.071137.18941@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com>,
>
>Thats because HRS4 had the staring role in `Dinning at Dahmers'
>Phill Hallam-Baker

Yes.  In fact, his last post was something like "I would give my right arm
to be invited to dinner at J. Dahmer's."  The poor man was just eating his
heart out for the opportunity.  Terribly sad.



-- 
------- Stephen M. Webb -------

Ack!  I've accidentally broken my leg!  -- Ed the Happy Clown

Xref: sparky soc.men:13739 soc.women:14136 misc.legal:14893 alt.child-support:2243 alt.dads-rights:1587
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Date: 27 Jul 92 07:16:43 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: soc.women
Organization: The Piranha Club

In article <VIXIE.92Jul26161023@cognition.pa.dec.com> 
vixie@pa.dec.com (Paul A Vixie) writes:

>We all have the right to keep our zippers zipped.  If we don't, there
>are consequences.  The right of the child to be supported supercedes
.......................................................
>Both parents had a choice.  Sexual intercourse has well-understood risks.

Please wait till the choice for women will be in a real risk
and then preach that to soc.women.  I wonder how all these
"for equality" feminists will feel when they will be treated
just like men, and when what they have preached at men for the
last twenty years will be preached at women...

(I bet that they will shout "sexism!")
Xref: sparky soc.men:13659 soc.women:14039 alt.dads-rights:1563 alt.child-support:2216
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: How much $$ is enough?
From: Gavin.Flower@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Gavin Flower)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 23:14:41 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Comp. Sci., Victoria Uni. of Wellington, New Zealand.

In article <1992Jul23.190746.697@unixg.ubc.ca> schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz) writes:
[...]
>My impression is that if they had children he'd be SOL,
>regardless of his wishes in the matter.  A traditional
>family setup seems to be the default assumption, along with
>a continuing sympathy with the tender years doctrine.
[...]
>This is completely one-sided: ignored is the father's
>financial support of wife and family from the very
>beginning, the benefit of children to the mother
>throughout, and the father's loss of contact with his
>family after divorce.  If children constitute a "gain"
>according to this, why is their removal from the life
>of the father after divorce not recognized as a legitimate
>burden?
>
>-S. Schultz

Also it ignores people like me.  I'm the one left with the children.
What about MY earning capacity, and the greater need of income to
enable me to raise my children to their potential?

I'm basically objecting to the use of the terms "father" and "mother",
as though the mother *always* looks after the children.

Yes, I'm feeling like part of a neglected minority...  :-)


Gavin

-- 
Tomorrow's Society                              | flower_g@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz
    Depends on                                   ----------------------------
Today's Children  - help us raise them properly! 
*******  These comments have no known correlation with dept. policy!  *******
From: pearl@remus.rutgers.edu (Starbuck)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: men, women, and the California Senate race
Date: 20 Jul 92 19:19:56 GMT
Organization: the Worlds Welfare Work Association, Rutgers Anime division

In article <3257@unisql.UUCP> wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie) writes:

> In article <1992Jul13.154937.21715@morrow.stanford.edu> GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:
> > [ campaign deleted ]
> 
> 	Don't know that I'd vote for anyone too dumb to set a Distribution:
> line...

Well, I am interested in her views.  Even though I live in NJ...

Steve
---
Stephen Pearl (Starbuck)    Work: (908)932-3465   Home: (908)566-6842
UUCP:  rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!pearl  Internet: pearl@remus.rutgers.edu
FidoNet: Stephen.Pearl@f619.n2605.z1.fidonet.org (or 1:2605/619)
GEnie: S.PEARL6                    CI$: >internet:pearl@remus.rutgers.edu  
US MAIL:  359 Lloyd Rd, Aberdeen, NJ 07747-1826           
QUOTES: "What is Starbuck-ing?" -Adultress 19
        "Works for me!" -Rick Hunter (The Cop, not the Robotech Defender)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support
From: bsearfos@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (bryan.d.searfos)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: How much $$ is enough?
Date: 23 Jul 92 14:15:48 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Jul23.045823.14145@unixg.ubc.ca> schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz) writes:
>Canadian women team up with the government to propose a new rationale
>to extract money from men.
>
>If a married woman quits her job to raise children or maintain the
>household, her loss in seniority and competitiveness means a loss in
>income when she re-enters the job market.  This income loss represents
>a "burden of the marriage" that, in case of divorce, must be shared by
>her ex-husband, according to a report by the national Commission on the
>Status of Women and the Department of Justice.  Her ex-husband must
>shoulder his share of this burden until she re-establishes her career
>-regardless- of the time required, even if it takes the rest of her
>life.
>
>Of course, she's not allowed to take as long as she wants; the "time
>required" is calculated from income tables from census data.  And this
>is just one of many independent sources of spousal support.
>
>What do y'all think of this proposal?  Is it a long-needed stroke for
>women's economic justice?  Or is it another example of the New Women's
>Liberation, by which women are liberated from the economic consequences
>of their choices (with the gallant aid of the nearest male wallet)?  Or
>somewhere in between :-)?  I wonder if this idea has hit the US, and
>how it would fare there?
>

This assumes that both parents have agreed - or at least the man thinks this
is best.  What if the mother stays home with the kids against the desires 
of the father?  

Bryan Searfos
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,alt.folklore.urban,misc.legal
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Ed Nilges and Snuff Films?
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 12:52:09 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Jul22.204923.26257@auto-trol.com> katbea@auto-trol.com (Kathy Beatty) writes:
>ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) writes:
>: Please be careful with this topic -- you might make it happen!  I've heard
>: that there is a group of bored rich people who like to make urban legends
>: come true.

   THAT sounds like an urban myth!


---peter


Xref: sparky soc.men:13840 soc.women:14269 misc.legal:15058 alt.child-support:2282 alt.dads-rights:1635 alt.abortion.inequity:2716
From: kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Date: 28 Jul 92 23:35:51 GMT
Organization: Chrysler Financial Corp., Southfield, MI

In article <exukjb.21.712334351@exu.ericsson.se> exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
>
>I agree with Paul on this one, except that he overlooks the fact that the 
>law must treat minors, in particular small children, as not independent 
>rational agents, capable of looking out for themselves.  They are dependent, 
>and as such have a right to depend on their parents, for this is just an 
>extension of the right to life. 

Parents, plural? Why? Why do they have the right to support from an 
unwilling, essentially UNINVOLVED biological parent? That smacks to me of
the "deep pockets" mentality...

>The issue has nothing whatever to do with 
>interferring with people's sex lives. 

Pardon my potential lack of imagination, but when Paul Vixie says "keep your
zipper up", I just _assume_ he's talking about my sex life... 

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician)
Subject: Re: Garvin Hallucina (2)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 12:51:58 GMT
Organization: Society for the Preservation of E. coli

In article <1992Jul30.020328.1621@zooid.guild.org> goid@zooid.guild.org (Will Steeves) writes:
>Mathemagician writes...
>MA> Bully for you.  I was raped by a woman and sexually assaulted by
>MA> another...or don't my experiences count?

>I know that this isn't strictly my business, but I am going to blatantly
>admit my ignorance as to how a man can be raped.  I am *not* saying that
>I disbelieve you, because in fact I *do*, but I am wondering about the
>question of - What happened?

Apparently, you have much greater control over your ability to have an
erection than I am.

An erection is a reflex action and the phrase, "scared stiff," can be
quite accurate in this case.

Short version:  When I was 17, I was just coming to terms with my
homosexuality and was on the brink of coming out to a friend (after
many hours of a conversation...most of which I spent in tears).  I
made a comment along the lines of, "I've had so many problems with
women that I'm thinking of trying men."

She then attempted to show me that I was mistaken by removing my
clothing and having sex with me, something I didn't want to do but
couldn't stop (given my mental state at the time, which only I know
about which means that I can't prove it to you or anybody else...I had
essentially "disconnected" from my body...I was watching it happen
rather than being "in the moment.")  I had never had sex with anybody
before.

Did I say no?  No, I didn't; thus I do not consider her a rapist and
would never consider pressing charges.  Did she have sex with me
without my consent?  Yes.  Thus, for lack of a better word, I was
raped.  No, my situation is not on the same level as what many women
have gone through, but that doesn't make my experience "easy" or
something to be discounted.  If anything, my experience has made me
that much more aware of what *does* go on so that I tell people to be
aware of your surroundings.  I tell people to not have sex until they
feel they are ready and let anybody I have sex with know that if at
any time they feel uncomfortable about anything, then we'll stop.  I
don't want what happened to me or worse to happen to others.

I have been groped and fondled by anonymous women in crowds as well as
having a strange woman come up behind me in a library, while I was
working, and stroke my face.

So no, I haven't had a woman sodomise me nor have I been tied up and
been threatened with castration if I don't perform.  Such things do
not encompass the entireity of "sexual contact without the consent of
one of the parties" which is, in my definition, rape.

-- 
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
Xref: sparky soc.men:13651 alt.dads-rights:1561
From: fedrick@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Kelvin W. Fedrick)
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 21:32:56 GMT

In article <VIXIE.92Jul26161023@cognition.pa.dec.com> vixie@pa.dec.com (Paul A Vixie) writes:
>
>No.  Every human has a choice of who he will or will not *create*.

 Wrong!!! If a woman is pregnant *she* has a choice to carry to term
 and create, or terminate the pregnacy trhough abortion and not create;
 the man has *no* such choice at that point. Given this, he at least should
 have the right to declare his intent to contribute or not contribute to
 the childs care and upbringing, and let the woman decide if she wants to
 go it alone or not.

>Now stop whining and get your shoulder to the wheel.

 If you are so gungho, why dont you do it for him?

-kelvin

Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights