HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Male bashing in other newsgroups
Date: 11 Sep 92 19:20:31 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Sep11.155651.7049@bnr.ca>, yali@bnrca (Yawar Ali) writes:
> 
> 
> In article <1992Sep10.135825.8009@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:
> 
> |> As the person who posted the list in the first place, let me
> |> put it into perspective.
> |> 
> |> 1)  It is a one way thing.  That is what bothers me.  I really feel
> |>     that women make up lists of these things that men (all men 
> |>     supposedly) are guilty of and we are supposed to enjoy a good
> |>     laugh at our expense.  Well Try to turn it around and see how
> |>     much jolly laughter the woman have when we complain.  I
> |>     doubt that very much.
> |>
> 
> You're missing the point: the item you posted is PRECISELY an example
> of women 'turning around' towards men the same kind of sexist and
> misogynistic characterizations that are so prevalent in society,
> the media, and, yes, on soc.men. So it is not a "one way thing".
> Your reaction seems to indicate that you don't find this very amusing.

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...

> Fine. Your arguments against this practice would have more credibility
> if they denounced ALL forms of <substitute-your-favorite-group>-bashing,
> not just put-down humor directed at men by women. 

Not if the point being made was criticizing said hypocritical behavior.

> <stuff deleted>
>  
> |> 
> |> marc colten
> |> 
> 
> -- 
> Yawar Ali  				
> Bell-Northern Research				EMail: yali@bnr.ca
> Ottawa, Ontario, Canada	K1Y 4H7			(613-)763-7741
> --------Standard Disclaimer: BNR is not responsible for my opinions--------

-- 

Dan S.
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood)
Subject: Re: Do Men Have Reproductive Rights?
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 8 Sep 92 12:25:18 CDT

In article <1992Sep8.031055.27775@colorado.edu> fedrick@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Kelvin W. Fedrick) writes:
>In article <1992Sep07.191948.639041@zeus.calpoly.edu> dgross@zeus.calpoly.edu (Dave Gross) writes:
>>	DO MEN HAVE REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS?
>>	by Dave Gross
>>
>>The courts will be happy to take a
>>chunk out of his paycheck every month, and add a little retroactive support in
>>for those few months he didn't realize he was the family breadwinner.
>
> I did not think that the any courts had the authority to award retroactive
> child support. I know for a fact that they cannot in Colorado (I will cite
> the case if someone insists but I dont have it here with me right now).
> Does someone know for sure a state in which this can be done?
>
>-kelvin


  I don't know about paternity related child support obligations, but
in Minnesota, they determined when child support "should" have started
for me and they arbitrarely increased my child support until I payed
up in full. When ex-wife decided the marriage ended, the courts bought
it. There is no requirement of proof. 
 It cost me 90 dollars to petition the 'extra' garnishment.
 It cost me three court appearances in another state because the judge
put the 'continuance' on the wrong day. The ass doesn't work on thursdays,
he probably had a mandatory seminar to attend regarding poor single 
mothers and the best interests of children put on by the anti father
group "The Children's Defense Fund". 

 The point is Kelvin, the best interests of the children is soaking
fathers for every dime they can get because the courts, t.v., Hillary,
the Children's Defense Fund(S FROM MEN), ACES, feminazis and
Donahues all presume that fathers don't count, just their paychecks.

 Kelvin, spend a day at family court. 

Jon
From: starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu (starbuck)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Citadel Update
Date: 8 Sep 92 13:53:45 GMT
Organization: University of California, Riverside

Here is an update on the Citadel story to keep the citadel a single-sex
colledge ala Mills College.  This story was first reported to soc.men
a while back.

Citadel closes classes to keep out women

   The Citadel battling a lawsuit to admit women to all-male day classes
said yesterday that instead of letting the women in it would keep all
veterans - including men - out.

   Three femaleveterans sued the stat military college in June trying to
get into day classes.  They do not want to join the all-male corps of cadets
only attend classes with them as male-veterans do.

   While women may attend summer  and evening classes, course offerings are
greater durring the day.  President  Claudius E. Watts III said The Citadel
didn't want to risk losing the lawsuit, which could mean losing a federal
Education Act exemption to operate as a single-sex college.

  The college also could lose federal loan and grant aid, which makes up about
10 percent of it's 40 million budget, he said.  The program will close at the
endt of this semester, affection 78 male veterans.  The college, located in 
Charleston, S.C. has about 2000 cadets.

starbuck
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
From: ericg@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Eric Chris Garrison)
Subject: Proposed Mailing List: mail.gender
Followup-To: ericg@indiana.edu
Keywords: gender stereotypes
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 13:29:59 GMT

[note: I already posted this in other newsgroups, but it was suggested
 I add soc.men and soc.women]

I would like to start a mailing list for those interested in dicussing
gender issues, including the [un]fairness of stereotypes, roles each
gender is cast in, society's views vs individual styles, and alter-
natives to living in a stereotypical mold.  Subjects could possibly
range into clothing, lifestyles, tastes and so on.  Members of the
list should be open-minded, open to discussion, and willing to
accept eccentricities in others.

The list would be a simple mail mirror that would distribute messages
to the list to all members of the list.  I could possibly arrange 
anonymous distribution of messages if that were requested.

If I get five or more positive responses to this article, I will
create the mail mirror and see about getting listed in news.lists
the next time it is updated.

So, if you are interested, send me mail!

Eric

-- 
Eric Chris Garrison			      UCS Support Center
ericg@ucs.indiana.edu			      Indiana University
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Male bashing in other newsgroups
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 16:07:42 GMT
Keywords: rec.arts.tv.soaps, male bashing

In article <1992Sep7.223656.11081@cbfsb.cb.att.com> colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:
)
)I completely forgot I had this downloaded to my PC.  My wife likes
)soaps so I download articles from rec.art.tv.soaps for her.  Saw this
)one and thought I should share it.  There's a lot of male bashing going
)on out there and this one is more gratuitious then most - I mean it has
)NOTHING to do with the newsgroup.  I'm sure if we men came up with our
)own list we'd be accused of being terrible people.

I'm not so sure about that.  Especially if you just turn this list around.
These stereotypes usually cut both ways.

)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

etc

/* set parody on */

SEMINARS FOR WOMEN

Once again, the male staff will be offering courses to women of all
marital status.  Please noe, 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 earn a salary
3.  PMS - Learning how to control your emotions
4.  How to mow the lawn.
5.  We do not want Neckties for Christmas.  GIVE US MONEY  (See course #2)
6.  Understanding the Male responce to your large department store bills.

Newsgroups: soc.men
From: malu@imdpy1.im.se (Mats Luthman)
Subject: Re: Birth control failures
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: Industri-Matematik Data AB, Sweden
	<716147848@lear.cs.duke.edu>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 15:18:07 GMT

In article <716147848@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:
   It's not the break in the condom, it's the man's own stupidity.  If he's
                                              ~~~~~                    ~~~~
   so worried, let him get a vasectomy.  If he's willing to take the risk
                   ~~~                      ~~~~
   of condoms, read CR to find out which ones are less likely to break.
   Why should a woman have to go through one of two dangerous procedures
   (abortion and pregnancy) because of a *man's* lie or a "break in condom"?  
					    --  Muffy Barkocy 

What about the woman? Isn't she capable of reading, and hasn't she got
anything to do with the choice of contraceptives?

--
Mats Luthman
Systecon AB (A subsidiary of Industri-Matematik AB)
Stockholm, Sweden
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Biological Sex Differences? ("Women only" excusable ?)
From: <RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Saturday, 5 Sep 1992 09:00:02 EDT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

-From: bsmart@bsmart.TTI.COM (Bob Smart)
-Subject: Re: Biological Sex Differences? ("Women only" excusable ?)
-
-In article <92241.144153RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET>, <RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
-> Oddly enough, departments that have
-> 90% girls are not asked for a corresponding explanation.
-
-I don't think this is "odd."  I think there's a presumption that males
-are generally allowed to go anywhere they want, so if they're
-underrepresented in particular departments it's most likely a sign that
-they simply don't want to be involved with those departments.  As long
-as there aren't crowds of males picketing for equal access to Home
-Economics classes, that presumption is likely to continue.
-
   What you say is so entirely reasonable that I do not want to be seen as argu
ing against it.  What I WOULD say is that it is in part a double standard.
When I was a student, the math and engineering classes were chock full of
boys and there were hardly any boys in music classes.  Now I knew that
unlike me, most of these boys did not LIKE math.  They never read any math
that they did not need for their courses.  But they knew that someday they
would be called on to support a family, a task that would not be imposed on
girls, and they'd better take a subject that "sells" even if they would
prefer to take a music course.  American boys now feel more free to do
music, with the consequence is that much of Science in the US is done by
foreigners.  It is not un-usual for foreign-born females to out-number US-born
white males in a Science department!!

Also, surely you cannot argue that men are the majority in jails because
that is what they want or that men have a lower life expect. because heaven
(or hell) is still sexist and men are trying to go there earlier!!  I
suspect that in both cases the difference is to be explained by bio-
logical differences betwen men and women and feminists and liberals
do not hesitate to give such an explanation.  However, as is bound to
happen, not ALL biological differences are to the advantage of women.
But this is NEVER allowed to be said in polite company!!

If we find men doing better than women in some area then we do not
look to see whether there IS sexism (though there MAY be), we just
assume that there MUST be sexism because men and women are equal.  we
do not see the difference betwen "equal" and "the same" in this case.
We have unconsciously accepted the notion that discrimination against
women is bad, but discrimination against men is OK.  "Women MAY be
biologically superior to men in some respects, but it is sexist to
say that men may be better than women in ANY respects."  What is this
is if it is NOT a double standard?  And are you quite sure that
this way of looking at it is going to help us solve the very serious
problems of this society?

Rohit Parikh
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Cook Can't Read (Was: "A Feminist" (was Re: Barbara H.))
Followup-To: alt.flame
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<ATAYLOR.92Sep3140231@gauss.nmsu.edu> <1992Sep4.223633.7500@crd.ge.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 15:36:28 GMT

<In article <1992Sep4.223633.7500@crd.ge.com> cook@dollar.crd.ge.com (Cathi Cook) writes:
<In article <ATAYLOR.92Sep3140231@gauss.nmsu.edu>, ataylor@nmsu.edu
<(Nosy) writes:
<|><In article <1992Sep2.223201.24322@crd.ge.com> cook@dollar.crd.ge.com
<(Cathi Cook) writes:

<|><   Just HOW are you guys defining "a feminist"?
<|>
<|>	I cannot speak for "guys", but if someone asserts that
<|>	they are "a feminist" who am I to doubt her/him?

<Did Rivero write that the woman had "asserted" that she was a
<feminist?  

	No. What does that have to do with Cook's question?

<No, that's why I asked why he called her one.  

	Where? Where did Cook ask this?

<|>< Just HOW are you guys defining "a feminist"?

	This sentence asks no questions directly of Rivero, 
	but questions of "you guys"; obviously addressed
	to any "guy" reading soc.men and/or soc.women.
	
	True, Rivero is a member of that set; but the set
	includes quite a few non-Riveros.

	If Cook wanted to ask Rivero a question, why did
	she address it to "you guys" instead of Rivero?

<If, in fact, she did "assert" this, then my question is answered.

	Why not ask Rivero instead of "you guys"?

<|>	I wonder when cook will ask "Just HOW are you gals defining
<|>	'a feminist'"?

<I would never ask that, as I think the word "gals" is idiotic.
 
	Some folks think the word "guys" is idiotic, but that
	doesn't remove meaning from the word.
	
<|><Does the woman have to have been
<|><   involved with women's rights, or does she just have to have picked
<|><   up a copy of Ms. once?  
<|>
<|>	Who am I to say? Again, if someone asserts that they
<|>	are "a feminist", it's easier to take the assertion
<|>	at face value than to ask for a detailed life history
<|>	complete with overarching philosophy.

<Did Rivero write that the woman "asserted" that she was a feminist?


	Who cares? 

	Cook wrote: "Just HOW are you guys defining "a feminist"". 

	If Cook wanted to ask a question of Rivero, she might 
	have tried writing "Just HOW is Rivero defining
	"a feminist".

	Cook cannot read her own text, apparently.

[Further demonstrations by Cook of her inability to read her
 own text, along with odd flames, deleted.]

	Just HOW does Cook define "a feminist", please?
Xref: sparky soc.men:16367 soc.women:16536
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Molly Yard, hyenas and lions
From: <RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Sunday, 13 Sep 1992 10:45:43 EDT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

-From: eab@msc.edu (Edward Bertsch)
-
-you were doing allright for a while.  Then you wrote:
-"    The American family  is in trouble,  in part because  fathers have been
-    systematically dis-enfranchised and mothers  are unable to control  the
-    teen-aged  sons  who  all  too  often  turn  to mischief."
-
-And don't forget the teen-aged daughters, who all too often turn to mischief.
-
  Sorry, you are quite right about that.

 Rohit Parikh
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Remote (Taxpayer) Wallets
Date: 8 Sep 92 00:51:38 GMT
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: Wright State University

In article <715871796@lear.cs.duke.edu>, gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:
> In article <1992Sep7.021638.6982@newstand.syr.edu> 
> kgatling@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Keith E Gatling) writes:
> 
>>And what about those guys who say, "Not to worry, I'm sterile"?  
> 
> 1) He is an asshole and I see no reason for the law to support him.
>    (What if she said "Not to worry, I'm sterile"?  Is not it nice
>    how y'all demand that she will get 25% of his income for the
>    next 18 years?)

He said.....

She said.....

What if they CLAIM the other said this, even if they didn't?

The money is not coming to the woman for her use, it's to help support
the child.   You seem to have ignored this in your post.

> 
> 2) I'm pro-choice for women so they will have some way out in such cases.
> 
>>     If you are going to have sex, you have to accept the possibility
>>     that you will have a kid.  
> 
> The anti-abortion people say that for everybody.  The pro-choice for
> women anti-choice for men feminists tell that only to men.  In the
> next sentence they usually claim the feminism is about "equality."
> 
> What a bunch hypocrites.

Well, when men can carry a pregnancy, then we will have total equality. 
Until then, nature seems to have made it unequal.  Sorry about that,
no one claimed that life guaranteed fairness.

Sue
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Subject: Re: K-Mark Hostages
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 07:18:44 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.192812.26406@news.nd.edu> slarsen@mozart.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:
>No one is responsible for violence except 
>the person perpetrating the violence.  I don't care how evil 
>some guy's ex-wife, mother, sister, children are, that man of 
>his own volition picked up that gun and committed a violent 
>act.  He is alone responsible for that act.  
>
>And, I do not appreciate the implication that women's behavior 
>can control a man's violence.  This is the same thing as saying 
>that a battered wife asked for or somehow deserved to be beaten.

OK, Susan.  Let's think about this for a minute.  Suppose a man
mentally tortures a woman and even abuses her physically.  This goes on
for years.  She never leaves him - for some reason known only to
members of 12-step groups, but instead stays and whimpers and cowers.
After years of this oppression, she plans a a heinous act of vengence.
She shoots him while he is sleeping in bed, then douses him with
gasoline and sets him on fire.

Is this murder?  Is she completely responsible for her actions?  Isn't
this premeditated murder in the first degree - a crime punishable by
death in most states?

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?

Just some questions....

Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM 
Xref: sparky soc.men:16108 soc.women:16295 alt.child-support:3091
From: ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic)
Subject: Re: K-Mark Hostages
Organization: TFS
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 14:32:20 GMT

charleen@ADS.COM (Charleen Bunjiovianna) writes:
> hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress) writes:
>>  If women didn't treat men like walking cash machines
>>  then these violent acts would happen less often.
>
>You know, I tried that, but I could never figure out whether
>the card goes in with the magnetic stripe up or down.
>
>Charleen
>attitudinally challenged

You can always try running the card backward. But Don't Forget:
Make sure to separate the man from his wallet, before you set him
on a stack of magnets. Bloomingdale's, and others to come, are now
charging hideous fees for card replacement.
:)

Berkeley: Where the elite meet to beat the Heat on the street.
From: starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu (aaron greenwood)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Citadel Update
Date: 8 Sep 92 16:47:34 GMT
Organization: University of California, Riverside

Here is an update on the Citadel story to keep the citadel a single-sex
colledge ala Mills College.  This story was first reported to soc.men
a while back.

Citadel closes classes to keep out women

   The Citadel battling a lawsuit to admit women to all-male day classes
said yesterday that instead of letting the women in it would keep all
veterans - including men - out.

   Three female veterans sued the stat military college in June trying to
get into day classes.  They do not want to join the all-male corps of cadets
only attend classes with them as male-veterans do.

   While women may attend summer  and evening classes, course offerings are
greater durring the day.  President  Claudius E. Watts III said The Citadel
didn't want to risk losing the lawsuit, which could mean losing a federal
Education Act exemption to operate as a single-sex college.

  The college also could lose federal loan and grant aid, which makes up about
10 percent of it's 40 million budget, he said.  The program will close at the
endt of this semester, affection 78 male veterans.  The college, located in 
Charleston, S.C. has about 2000 cadets.

starbuck
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
From: holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Subject: Re: K-Mark Hostages
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 00:25:35 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnalno.fnal.gov
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Sep10.224641.14189@u.washington.edu>, 
hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress) writes:
> Janice Kendall writes
>>If men were more capable of dealing with their own emotions and were less
>>dependent emotionally on women - they also might not become 
>>obsessive/possessive and kill women who try to leave them.
> 
>   If women didn't treat men like walking cash machines
>   then these violent acts would happen less often.

First of all, there is a fundamental flaw in someone who reacts to not being 
treated nicely by killing.

Second, men were getting obsessive/possessive of women long before this "cash
machine" notion came around.

Third, there isn't a direct cause-effect relationship between the two.

Finally, the more you talk, the more obvious it becomes that you're a prime
example of the system working exactly as it should.
-- 
Daniel B. Holzman                    | Eight Words the Witch's Rede Fufill:
HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET                  | An It Harm None, Do What You Will
HOLZMAN@FNALC.FNAL.GOV.INTERNET      |
                                     | All Acts of Love and Pleasure are
Love doesn't subtract,               | Her Rituals
   it multiplies    - Heinlein       |
                                     | Speak the Word.
Disclaimer:  Fermilab's far too large to have an opinion, let alone mine.
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.sex
From: bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca (Brad Booth)
Subject: Re: Birth control failures
Originator: bbooth@bcrks6
Reply-To: bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca (Brad Booth)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd, Ottawa
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 13:23:53 GMT


In article <716073523@lear.cs.duke.edu>, gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:
> From a Consumer Reports, when birth controls are used *properly*:
> 1) Condom - 95% effective.

I've heard that condoms using a spermicidal lubricant are about 99%
effective.  Also, that the spermicidal lubricant helps to reduce the
risk of STD's.  My wife and I have been using these types of condoms
for over a year (my wife can't use the pill), and so far we've had
no accidents. ;)  (touch wood)


    __o     Brad Booth              | "I want you
  _`\<,_    Bell-Northern Research  |  to know me only as
 (*)/ (*)   Ottawa, Ontario, Canada |  what I believe I am."
----------  bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca  |     ... 54-40