HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Parallel situations
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 03:42:11 GMT

In article <1993Jan2.035717.21488@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>In article <1993Jan1.015955.117@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec29.210320.9276@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>>> Kevin Darcy
>>>> Larry Margolis
>>>
>>>>>Similarly, there is no formal "billing" of pregnancy/child-support costs
>>>>>until a child is born, and the paternity award is made, but that doesn't mean
>>>>>the charges aren't INCURRED before the child is born.
>>>>
>>>>The charges are incurred by the woman whether or not a child results; the
>>>>man is only obligated to pay a portion of those charges if a child results
>>>>and a paternity award is made.  If no child results, then there is no
>>>>paternity award, and therefore no financial obligation for the man even
>>>>though charges were incurred by the woman.
>>>>
>>>Minor quibble, just to keep the facts straight...
>>>Kevin, the OB types I know all have charges which are paid by the
>>>pregnant woman as pre-natal care is administered. Even those with
>>>insurance have deductables, co-payments etc. So there most certainly
>>>*is* formal billing of pregnancy costs before any child is born.
>>
>>The issue at hand is whether the man incurs paternity child support liability
>>at the point he has sexual intercourse, or later, after the child is born, and
>>the paternity award is made.
>>
>>What you contributed, Mark, while perhaps true, is irrelevant to the issue at 
>>hand.
>>
>Then you were posting irrelevancies when you posted the claim that "there
>is no formal "billing" of pregnancy/child support costs until a child
>is born"

Gack! What a moron! Look back through the articles of this thread, Mark.
We were talking about a billing of the MAN. Sheesh.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism,talk.abortion
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,alt.women,soc.men,misc.legal
Subject: Re: How to Protect Women
Date: 23 Dec 92 16:45:10 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <bob1.725059087@cos> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
>In <1992Dec21.042405.1584@fulcrum.oz.au> steve@fulcrum.oz.au (Steve Taylor) writes:
>
>>Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>
>>>In my humble opinion, IF I were in an abusive relationship, I would LEAVE!  
>>>I would never allow it to degrade to a situation where I was in a life 
>>>and death struggle and was forced to use deadly force in order to prevent 
>>>someone from using deadly force against me.
>
>>It's not that simple. Leaving can be a risk in itself. Do you have the
>>courage to leave when you know that you're risking much more extreme
>>violence? Yes, leaving is the right thing to do, but it's no always safe.
>
>It sure isn't. Note that many of the stalking cases were women who
>elected to leave an abusive relationship, only to have the abuser
>track them down.

Maybe I am uninformed in this, but are not your chances of drowning in a
swimming pool many times greater than those of becoming a stalking victim?
I mean, even in abusive relationships, this is extremely rare, to the
best of my knowledge.
 
So while the possibility may be real, it does not reasonably look like
a prime consideration, even in abusive relationships.

>>							Steve
>
>REB
 

Rich

payner@netcom.com
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism,talk.abortion
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Parallell situations (was Re: Muffy becomes anti-choice)
Date: 23 Dec 1992 16:51:20 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Dec23.162739.1@d0gslb.fnal.gov> holzman@d0gslb.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman) writes:
>In article <1h8aufINNbs3@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com>, regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com 
>(Adrienne Regard) writes:
>> Uh, 
>> but,
>> Daniel,
>> We haven't seen 'a parallell' yet.
>> We have seen many things, but we haven't seen a parallell yet.
>> Got one to show us?
>A parallell has been posted here several times.  Here we go again:

You don't get it, Daniel.  What you posted is not a parallel.

Ya gotta wonder....

>During the time that a woman can legally obtain an abortion, less lead time for
>notification purposes, a man should be able to legally disolve all ties to a
>fetus.

Unsupported assertion.  Why?  A woman retains the right NOT to legally 
dissolve all ties, but to REMOVE the fetus from her body.  If she were to
remove the fetus from her body and it survived, she would STILL have legal
responsibilities toward the fetus.  Same with the man.

Upon what basis do you make this unsupported assertion?  What leads you to
the conclusion that a woman's right to her physical person is a 'parallell'
to a man's control  over his wallet (conveniently ignoring the woman's
wallet all the while)?

The situation from the very gitgo is not parallel. And that renders the
rest of it garbage.

Therefore, I'll just delete the rest until we get this beginning straightened
out.

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: soc.women
From: <ELLEN@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:    cross posting
Organization: Purdue University
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 18:21:07 GMT

     I just finished reading all 59 articles in soc.women (it's slow
this time of year).  I routinely 'markall' posts so they will be removed
in case I check later and only want to read new posts.  When I exited, I
noticed that this action had removed 51 posts from soc.men.  So there were
only 8 genuine posts to soc.women.   Does anyone know how to pre-select for
dedicated posts, also how to remove certain authors, on vm (not mace)?
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism,talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: Diane
Subject: Re: Choosing Dangerous Relationships (was: How to Protect Women)
Organization: University of Missouri
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 16:02:12 CST

In article <1992Dec28.191529.13459@netcom.com>
sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
 
>The easiest way for a woman to avoid such situations would be to
>choose a low-keyed, low-dominance male as her partner. However,
>as Paglia notes in her latest book, many women go out of their way to
>CHOOSE a high-dominance, high-violence man, because of the greater
>excitement in such a relationship. They don't WANT to be abused, but
>are willing to undertake such a risk in order to enjoy the 'extra sizzle'
>that comes from living on the edge of danger.
 
I think a false stereotype of dominent man = high-violence man is being pushed
here. Another is the dubious move of blaming the victim for 'chosing' a violent
partner (who of course would not be abusive otherwise?). There is no 'typical'
profile of an abuser. Some other books (like "Getting Free") would probably
provide a more balanced picture of abuse (there's even a chapter on lesbian
relationships- to throw off the stereotype of women = non-violence).
 
Diane
Xref: sparky soc.women:21888 soc.men:21772 alt.feminism:6519 talk.abortion:52879
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Parallel situations (was Re: Muffy becomes anti-choice)
Date: 23 Dec 92 23:09:21 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: soc.women
Organization: Living In Harmony

In article <1992Dec23.162739.1@d0gslb.fnal.gov> 
holzman@d0gslb.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman) writes:

>A parallell has been posted here several times.  Here we go again:

Don't waste time explaining anything to Adrienne.
She *knows* that she is entitled for her rights, and that's that
the only thing that should really count.

>During the time that a woman can legally obtain an abortion, less lead 
>time for notification purposes, a man should be able to legally 
>disolve all ties to a fetus.

I prefer to give him just one week, after he was notified, to decide 
if he wants rights and responsibilities toward the future child.
The short time is important because abortions in the first weeks 
(vacuum methods, and (probably after 1/20/1993) RU-486), are safer,
cheaper and easier.
From: st0o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Steven Timm)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Women's Health Clinics
Date: 3 Jan 93 05:35:55 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.4fFkTP600YUoM23YZr
Organization: Doctoral student, Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

I have a friend from South Africa who is a member of the ANC women's
collective.  She would like to spend some time in the United States
learning about how to run women's health clinics and rape crisis centers.
Who are some people or organizations to contact about this?

Please respond via E-mail.


Thanks a lot,

Steve Timm
From: dwelch@mpd.tandem.com (Dan Welch)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Men & Women, "Males & Females"
Date: 21 Dec 92 17:36:15 GMT
Organization: Tandem Computers (MPD) Austin, TX

In article <1992Dec20.132756.13004@news.cs.indiana.edu> alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu (Amy Young Leith) writes:
>In article <1992Dec20.110910.24188@hemlock.cray.com> acp@cray.com (Anthony Peterson) writes:
>
>>	Wouldn't the term males include male dogs, skinks, goldfish,
>>	etc as well as male humans?
>
>Perhaps I have too much faith in the usenet readership, but when I am
>making a post, I assume that the reader has the intelligence enough to
>figure out whether I'm taling about a human, dog, skink, or goldfish. 

What you are talking about isn't the point.  Using the term "males" instead
of "men" indicates that you aren't thinking of them as being first human,
then male, but rather first male, then human.  In other words, their maleness
is more important than their humanity -- an attitude that is hardly
beneficial to improving relations between the sexes.

I don't mean you personally, Amy, BTW.  But this is my sense of how a
lot of people feel.

Daniel Welch
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: elvis@netcom.com ('kEvin')
Subject: A Proposal
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 22:29:58 GMT


here it is:

NEVER crosspost between soc.men, soc.women, alt.feminism, etc.



If the article is of interest to several groups which are likely
to pursue different aspects of the original post, post it separately
to each group. Soc.men, which I read, has been inundated with crossposts
from alt.feminism that all followed up a few posts that were relevant
to both groups. Most of this traffic is only germane to alt.feminism.

I realize that this will use more filespace, but it will improve the
readibility of the soc.* groups immensely.


kEvin
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
From: coleman@rocky.cs.ucla.edu (Mike Coleman)
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 07:45:53 GMT

lmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Laurie Mann) writes:
|But when men commit violence against other men, it's often in connection with
|some other crime---a gang turf war, a drug deal gone wrong, etc.  When
|violence is committed against a woman, it can be a random attack, but over
|half the time it's by an SO or by her ex-SO.

Speaking as a man, I can tell you that that makes me feel much safer.

Isn't violence just intrinsically bad, or does gender really matter?

-- 
--Mike Coleman (coleman@cs.ucla.edu), Lord High Executioner of Anhedonia-----
  You're loud and you stink.  So don't bother honking; I know you're there.
From: lmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Laurie Mann)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Date: 21 Dec 1992 13:40:21 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
Distribution: world
Reply-To: lmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: ansible.pubs.stratus.com

Dan Swartzendruber writes
>In article <168C1CB92.SURGDM@mizzou1.missouri.edu>, Diane writes:
>> dgross@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu (Dave Gross) writes:
>> 1) Who are the major proponents of circumcision?
>> - Doctors, the mojority of which are still men.
>Citations please?  In many cases this is a religious issue.  Oh, I forgot -
>these are patriarchal religions, so it's a moot point.

No, Dan, in the vast MINORITY of cases is circumcision done for "religious  
reasons."  It's still done routinely in many hospitals to boys of many  
different religions.  Whether a religion is patriarchal or not
is completely irrelevent to this discussion.

>> 2) Who does the majority of bullying in school?
>> - Boys
>Who reinforces their socialized roles of toughness? - girls/women

This is patent bull.  Sure, there are some women who do this, but this happens  
a whole lot more from stereotypic fathers and coaches.  Most people I hung out  
with in school hated that kind of behavior.

*  In Germany they first came for the Communists, and I didn't speak *
*  because I wasn't a Communist.  Then they came for the Jews, and I *
*  didn't speak because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade *
* unionists, and I didn't speak because I wasn't a trade unionist... *
*Then they came for me--and by that time no one was left to speak up.*
*  Rev. Martin Niemoeller     [Why to March on Washington in April]  *
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell)
Subject: Re Male/Female etc
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 19:37:12 GMT


Newsgroups: soc.women
From: rfs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (richard.f.j.soyack)
Subject: Re: Men & Women, "Males & Females"
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 03:43:50 GMT


In article <1992Dec20.110910.24188@hemlock.cray.com> acp@cray.com (Anthony Peterson) writes:
>In article <1h0carINN1k9@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell) writes:
>>
>>>I've noticed that many men ( sometimes myself ) get very annoyed by
>>>women/feminists referring to them excluisively as "males".

(stuff deleted)

>>
>>I doubt that most people intend either term as an insult.
>>
>
>	Wouldn't the term males include male dogs, skinks, goldfish,
>
>	etc as well as male humans?

Being offended seems to be the growth industry of the 90's, I
just have to figure out how to make money off of it!  Hmmm,
who should I ask about that?

Rich Soyack
	
	*LAUGH*  Point well taken :) *Chuckle*  However I think
	you would soon find yourself having the same tentative
	ethical debates to contend with as arms dealers if you
	were successful.

Steve R



Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism,talk.abortion
From: sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell)
Subject: Mommy made me do it
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 18:01:14 GMT



In article <1992Dec23.014026.23136@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>
noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
 
    <examples of male violence against men>
 
>Who raised these men?

Diane writes: 
 
Oh for godsakes; how long are we going to blame mommy? When do we
get to grow up and take responsibility for our selves? I don't teach
my son to be any more violent than my daughter. 


	Im against "blame placing" myself, but the above comments
	have made me think.

	1.  Yes, motheres *used to be* the prime influence/contact
    	    for a young child.  Yes, this influence/contact is
	    significant.

	2.  No.  This contact is not the only factor of weight
	    contributing to a childs development.  Peers/society
	    as a whole have a profound effect.  I have read of
	    of several examples where feminist mothers have tried
	    to raise children free of the usual asscociated sex
	    stereotypes to no avail.  The child inevitably picks
	    up the the characteristics the mother doesnt want once
	    the kid has contact with other kids.

	
	3.  It would seem indviual parents are not to blame.  It
	    is the society--- all of the parents together influencing
	    pools of children who interconnectingly influence each other
	    to some extent.

	
Just making a point

SFJR




Xref: sparky soc.women:22009 soc.men:21988 alt.feminism:6700 talk.abortion:53821
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Parallel situations
Date: 1 Jan 93 01:59:55 GMT
Organization: Who, me???

In article <1992Dec29.210320.9276@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>> Kevin Darcy
>> Larry Margolis
>
>>>Similarly, there is no formal "billing" of pregnancy/child-support costs
>>>until a child is born, and the paternity award is made, but that doesn't mean
>>>the charges aren't INCURRED before the child is born.
>>
>>The charges are incurred by the woman whether or not a child results; the
>>man is only obligated to pay a portion of those charges if a child results
>>and a paternity award is made.  If no child results, then there is no
>>paternity award, and therefore no financial obligation for the man even
>>though charges were incurred by the woman.
>>
>Minor quibble, just to keep the facts straight...
>Kevin, the OB types I know all have charges which are paid by the
>pregnant woman as pre-natal care is administered. Even those with
>insurance have deductables, co-payments etc. So there most certainly
>*is* formal billing of pregnancy costs before any child is born.

The issue at hand is whether the man incurs paternity child support liability
at the point he has sexual intercourse, or later, after the child is born, and
the paternity award is made.

What you contributed, Mark, while perhaps true, is irrelevant to the issue at 
hand.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism,talk.abortion
From: marcia@rap.ucar.edu (Marcia Politovich)
Subject: Re: Parallel situations
Organization: NCAR, Research Application Program
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 19:09:54 GMT

In article <jay.31.725734979@UUSERV.CC.UTAH.EDU> jay@UUSERV.CC.UTAH.EDU (Jay Deuel) writes:
>>It has been said many times previously in this newsgroup (t.a) that the
>>woman has the right of removal, not the right of destruction.  That the
>>fetus is not capable of surviving on its own at the time of practically
>>all abortions is just too bad for the fetus.
>
>It seems odd to me that some would say it's too bad for the fetus if it
>can't survive on its own, but an infant is protected by law because it
>can't survive on its own.  Isn't birth just a natural form of abortion? =)
                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^



                              No.



>
>P.S. How about the Chicago couple that left their kids "home alone"?

Personally I think they ought to be horsewhipped (I'm serious, too).
Apparantly a lot of people do this and it's a sad comment on our times.

mkp
From: alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu (Amy Young Leith)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Men & Women, "Males & Females"
Date: 22 Dec 92 00:22:25 GMT
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington

In article <3184@devnull.mpd.tandem.com> dwelch@mpd.tandem.com (Dan Welch) writes:

>What you are talking about isn't the point.  Using the term "males" instead
>of "men" indicates that you aren't thinking of them as being first human,
>then male, but rather first male, then human.  In other words, their maleness
>is more important than their humanity -- an attitude that is hardly
>beneficial to improving relations between the sexes.

No, this is not how I mean it.  The "human" part is assumed if the
conversation previously has clearly been about humans.  At least it
would be to me.  Yes, if I had been talking about the mating habits of
male wilderbeasts, then yes, it would make sense to point out in an
abrupt change of conversation thread that you were indeed speaking of
humans. 

Perhaps I'm not thinking about this in the "pc" way everyone else is. 

amy
-- 
alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu for personal mail
			    All business mail to alyoung@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Dislcaimer:I only speak for myself.  Anyone who thinks differently is a fool.
			(This means NOT my employer!!)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism,talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Parallel situations
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: None worth mentioning.
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 93 06:02:52 GMT

In article <1993Jan3.034934.11018@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1993Jan02.044059.5171@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>In <1993Jan1.015955.117@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>
>>>What you contributed, Mark, while perhaps true, is irrelevant to the issue at
>>>hand.
>>
>>Actually, what Mark described is *exactly* what I've been talking about.
>
>Then you have done an absymal job of expressing yourself, Larry. In
><1992Dec28.182701.28515@watson.ibm.com>, you said "...there is no financial 
>obligation prior to birth." Mark Cochran, on the other hand, has said, in
><1992Dec29.210320.9276@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, "...there most certainly *is* 
>formal billing of pregnancy costs before any child is born". If those two 
>statements are compatible, it's certainly not obvious HOW...
>
And yet you claim that my comments were irrelevant, despite your
posting that "there is no formal billing until aftera child is born"
Kevin.
If your statment that my comments were irrelevent, and this use of
them as part of your (surely relevent) argument are compatible, it's
certainly not obvious HOW...

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: celeste%express@freedom.msfc.nasa.gov (Celeste)
Subject: Re: thermal underpants
Followup-To: soc.women
Organization: AEGIS
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:47:53 GMT

In article <168C4E567.SURGDM@mizzou1.missouri.edu>, Diane wrote:
> 
> In article <1992Dec21.202818.18401@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>
> krw@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (keith.r.smith) writes:
>  
>     <stuff deleted>
>  
> >I compares the "specs" on a number of differrent brands, with their
> >own separate sizing schemes, and determined that a women's small should
> >fit me properly.  I opened a package.  The legs looked long enough,
> >(I stand 5'11") they looked about big enough around in the thighs and
> >in the hips, and the waistband looked just-right!  The only thing missing
> >
>       <more stuff deleted>
>  
> >I can't help but think that _one day_ the folx who make athletic gear
> >(you know, those garments that _have to_ fit men/women of athletic
> >proportions), would get together with the folx that make thermal undies,
> >and a KILLING would be made!
> >
> >What do ya' think, folx?
> >
> >Keith R
>  
> Well Keith, I think you did a very nice job of explaining the women's
> undies in your sock drawer. *Now* how are you going to explain the
> bra and fishnet hose in the box at the bottom of your closet???
> ;-)
>  
> Diane

Why fight it!

He has a "girl's" (woman's) build. I wonder if his
brain is like wise wired?

My sure is. I also have a complete wardrobe to go with it!
(Which includes my prized Kasper suit (by ALS)!) Some of 
my women friends loan me some of their clothes and they want
to borrow mine!

Bye the way Diane, what size do you wear? I am 16'.

Love and hugs,

Celeste

P.S. A number of the "guys" call me a "Fema-nazi" due to my membership
     in feminist orgs.
P.P.S. 
    
Xref: sparky soc.rights.human:4639 soc.culture.yugoslavia:10236 soc.culture.europe:10708