HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.ine
Subject: Re: Right to not support
Date: 19 Aug 92 05:19:38 GMT
Reply-To: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

goid@zooid.guild.org (Will Steeves) writes:

-> root@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick   ) writes...
-> BK> I'm not sure of other locations, but here in Washington, paternity tests
-> BK> which were made after the 'dad' had begun his support, demonstrated that
-> BK> the putative father wasn't actually the dad.
-> 
-> BK> It is a wise thing to demand paternity testing.
-> 
-> 
-> Indeed.
-> 
-> Incidentally, does one *require* a sample of blood from the mother to perform
-> a DNA test, or does tissue only need to be taken from child and  the apparent
-> father?  Does this reduce the accuracy?  If so, by how much?  Thanks!
-> 
-> Sorry for playing twenty questions...


No sweat :-)

The blood tests I spoke of require a sample from the child and from the
dad. The mother isn't in this particular equation. Anyway, elements of
similarity achieve a 98% chance (or something like that) of paternity.

I don't have information at hand on this, but I don't believe that the
dads inaccurately named had recourse --their responsibility was stopped
by the court, but I don't recall ever hearing of any repayment.

Anyway, DNA tests are on the upswing, but the general _legal_ belief I
see is that blood tests will do the job. 


---
Bob Kirkpatrick, Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA
bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Opinions wanted on Faludi's _Backlash_
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 16:34:50 GMT

In article <BtALzz.3I3@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> escr@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (elizabeth) writes:
)
)I just finished reading Susan Faludi's BACKLASH and would like to know
)what you all thought of it...does it make sense or is it a bunch of crap?
)I'm not going to post my own opinions yet so as not to bias the replys
)I get :).
)
)If this has already made the rounds I humbly apologize, and would ask
)someone to direct me to somewhere I can catch up on the subject or e-mail
)me instead of posting...
)
)thanks in advance..
)elizabeth

This has been discussed before :-)

My opinion of it is that it has an axe to grind.  It doesn't directly tell
you anything that isn't true (at least that I am aware of, I haven't
carefully scrutinized the whole thing)  but Faludi is selective in both what
she presents and how she presents it.  This should be fairly obvious from the
book subtitle, IMO - books about the "Undeclared War Against XXXXXX" are
probably not going to be models of objective journalism :-).

$.69 on the dollar is a good example.  Compare what Faludi has to say 
on the topic, what Farrell says (in 'Why Men Are the Way They Are'), or
some of the Census Bureau figures she slams ("Male-Female Differences in Work
Experience, Occupation, and Earnings 1984) if you have the time &  interest.
(I can Email you a copy of Dave Gross' FAQ on the $.69 issue which quotes
Farrel, if you are interested, as well as some of the statistics from the
Census Bureau report I quoted that I have typed in.)

You'll probably come to the conclusion that there is a lot to this issue,
certainly a lot more than 'male discrimination', and that the Census Bureau
probably had some *reasons* for changing their method of reporting the
figures - a change that Faludi implies is a Chauvninist Plot, though she
doesn't actually say so directly.
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
From: jrr@nsc.nsc.com (Jerry Roe)
Subject: Re: Equal Male Rights
Organization: National Semiconductor, Santa Clara
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 00:01:17 GMT

In article <1992Aug7.042743.21796@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
>In article <1992Aug7.003830.9547@u.washington.edu>
>jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress) writes: 
>#    This "nature is unequal hence the laws should stay unequal"
>#    is the biggest bunch of sexist crap that I've ever had to ingest.
>
>Propose a method besides force abortions for women, and you might get
>a hearing. 
>
>Untill then, you will remain a sexist.
>
>--
>-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia

OK, Greg, listen up:  NOBODY HERE IS SAYING ANYTHING ABOUT FORCING
WOMEN TO HAVE AN ABORTION!!  Somehow this is getting filtered and not
coming out the way it's going in.  What IS being said:  equal rights means
equal rights.  It's a simple equation:  ER = ER.  Simple.  Balanced.
Same on both sides.  The woman gets to choose something, the man gets to
choose something.  If it's not a marital pregnancy and it's not rape, and
she chooses to keep the kid when he doesn't want it, then SHE HAS TO BE
RESPONSIBLE FOR HER ACTIONS!  If she chooses to abort, right now the man
has no right to the child.  If she chooses to give birth and give up the
child for adoption, the man has no right to the child, in almost all
jurisdictions.  If she chooses to give birth and keep the child, the man nas
no rights or say in the matter - just the enforced obligation to PAY.

What part of this isn't clear?


Jerry Roe		FREE
			National Congress For Men
			National Council for Children's Rights
jrr@nsc.nsc.com		...!{sun,pyramid,decwrl)!nsc!jrr
From: revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Part 2: Biological Determinism and Skepticus Maxiwuss
Date: 13 Aug 92 03:41:03 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system

firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes:

> In article <mB9cPB6w164w@cellar.org> revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano)
> 
> > how can one reconcile ideals
> >of  liberty and  self-determination  while simultaneously  maintaining
> >that societies need to dominate the people within them?
> 
> One can't.  Ideals of liberty and self-determination cannot be
> sustained over the long term, because they are incompatible with
> a stable society.  That's why, throughout history, societies
> based on hierarchy and dominance have endured for millennia,
> while societies based on liberty and self-determination have
> messily self destructed after a century or two.
> 
> We may not like that, but guess what: the world is what it is,
> and it doesn't give a rotten fig for what we like or dislike.

        True in one sense, but I don't see that recognizing-- to paraphrase 
one of the Founding Fathers-- that liberty requires eternal vigilance to 
protect it argues against the desire to have it. In other words, it's tough 
to acquire freedom, but we certainly keep trying.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian "Rev. P-K" Siano                                  revpk@cellar.org
"What? They have BIGGER DICKS?! _BOMB THEM!!!!_"
                        Our Leaders, paraphrased by George Carlin
From: stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: It isn't slavery
Date: 15 Aug 92 15:08:45 GMT
Followup-To: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
Distribution: na
Organization: Murasami Labs

Thomas Eric Brunner wrote:

[opinionated drivel removed]

> needs to be net-noticed. That was quite a bit preferable this flood of
> opinionated drivel (since 3 August).

[203 lines of more drivel removed, not including the .sig]

So what is it you call having to work for 18 years, pay a significant
chunck
of change, possibly live much worse than the supportee you're paying for,
not be free to change occupation to a lower paying one? Oh, and then to be
denied a meaningful relationship with the supportee?

At least with indentured servitude, you got something out of it: a skill,
or a trip to the new country. You got a chance to make something out of
your life. 

So what is it? I call it an abomination. I call it an injustice.

K'Char
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
From: shilling@cc.gatech.edu (John J. Shilling)
Subject: Re: mandatory service
Organization: School of Information and Computer Science / Georgia Tech
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 19:42:14 GMT

> In article <4069@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us> shomer@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us writes:
> >the mother in custody. It's funny: when I talk about custody issues with 
> >women, they're always asking "what's good for the kid?" 
>
> I'd be *far* more impressed with this if they didn't assume
> that "what's best for the kid" is the same as whatever was
> best for the mother. Come back when more than a handful of
> women think that giving the father custody and sending him
> child support payments is in the best interest of the kid.

For instance, my ex-wife, who was asking for 28% of my gross income in child
support if she got custody wanted to know much child support I was still going
to pay TO HER if I got custody.

-- 
John J. Shilling
College of Computing, Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332-0280
shilling@cc.gatech.edu

		       - SUBTLE BUT NOT MEAN -
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu (aaron greenwood)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Hating Men with Full Force
Date: 19 Aug 92 23:00:52 GMT
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: University of California, Riverside

In article <l60m-xf.sheaffer@netcom.com-> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
->A few brief quotes from Houston _Chronicle_ reporter Jacsun Shah, as
->reported in the Jan., 1992 issue of "Liberty" magazine, p. 78:
->
->   "Yes, I am a man hater, yes, I am a feminist. and why not?
->    Women are dying . They die every day, at the hands of men.
->    Men ... beat them, rape them, dismember them. Hell yes, I
->    hate men ... To all of you women out there, I say _hate_.
->    You have every right to ... I knew the kindest thing I could
->    do for the women of this world is to hate men with full force."
->
->(entered exactly as published in Liberty).
->
 
Talk about one toak over the line! Sweet Jesus.

Maybe this should be posted to alt.romance.

Wow!

starbuck
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dave Eisen)
Subject: Re: Some Politically Incorrect questions
Organization: Sequoia Peripherals, Inc.
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 92 14:21:10 GMT

In article <1992Aug15.075051.21583@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>>  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.

Are you just being snotty, or do you honestly think househusbanding
is a reasonable option for a man? I seem to recall a man named
Chet Murthy who used to post here all the time lamenting the fact
that women get to be housewives and that he as a man was forced
to get an advanced degree and get a high paying job when he would
much rather get married and stay home with the kids. People gave
him all kinds of a hard time because they thought he didn't 
appreciate how bad a job being a househusband would be or because
they thought he was just saying this to make a point or being
he was getting annoying harping on this one issue or because they
were sexists and thought that as a man, he should accept his
fate and go out and earn some money. But nobody argued with his
basic premise that he would have an incredibly difficult time
achieving his goal of being a househusband.

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?



-- 
Dave Eisen    dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU   Sequoia Peripherals: (415) 967-5644
          	Some of my best friends are men.
        --- Lisa Nee in "American Women Deserve a Tax Break."
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Right to not support
X-To: BOB KIRKPATRICK
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 03:23:00 GMT

(NOTE: My Sysadmins and I have still not solved my multiple-posting problem.
It happens sometimes, but not others.  If this posts in multiple numbers,
please bear with me...)


root@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick   ) writes...
BK> I'm not sure of other locations, but here in Washington, paternity tests
BK> which were made after the 'dad' had begun his support, demonstrated that
BK> the putative father wasn't actually the dad.

BK> It is a wise thing to demand paternity testing.


Indeed.

Incidentally, does one *require* a sample of blood from the mother to perform
a DNA test, or does tissue only need to be taken from child and  the apparent
father?  Does this reduce the accuracy?  If so, by how much?  Thanks!

Sorry for playing twenty questions...

---
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 * "Hello World!"  17 Error, 31 Warnings
-- 
Ross Ridge - The Great HTMU					     l/	 //
								    [OO][oo]
ross@zooid.guild.org						    /()\/()/
uunet.ca!zooid!ross						     db	 //
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: bkt@blacks.jpl.nasa.gov (Barrie Trinkle)
Subject: Re: Woody Allen Charged With Molesting his Kids in Custody Battle
Organization: Image Analysis Systems Group, JPL
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 23:59:36 GMT

I don't understand why the media persists in calling it an "affair" (unless
either Woody or the woman is legally married, but they haven't said that).
Why not "relationship"?  Are they just trying to make it sound sleazy?
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
..nothing is so fatal to maidenly delicacy of speech as the run of 
a good library.
				Robertson Davies, _Tempest Tost_
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz)
Subject: Re: Hating Men with Full Force
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 00:21:31 GMT

In article <2316@unet.UUCP> linda@wendy.net.com (Linda Hill) writes:

>The point I got from Brian's post was "No wonder women hate men.  Look at what
>women have gone through at the hand's of men."  That may not be what he meant,
>but it sure hit home for me.

I think most women in this category eventually come to the realization
that this is a maladaptive coping mechanism, known as 'projection.'
Some, unfortunately, not before they use it as a reason for becoming
politically active.  The textbook symptoms of projection (according to
Merck) are 'prejudice, rejection of intimacy through paranoid
suspicion, overvigilance to external danger, and injustice-
collecting.'  Oddly enough, these also add up to the popular stereotype
of a 'feminist.'  This implies that, for some, feminism is a sort of
formal, legitimized projection.  Not surprising really, if you consider
that the same can be said of most political movements.

-S. Schultz
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,soc.penpals
From: joni@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (joni.dunlap)
Subject: Re: DANGER!!!!
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 20:48:26 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.123439.606@ualr.edu> casmith@acs.harding.edu writes:
>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!

If he was so bad then why did the population of Arkansas re-elect him
so many times? At a 250% increase in taxes, Arkansas still has some of the
lowest taxes in the US. Try coming over to DuPage, Cook  or Lake county in
Illinois if you want to know what paying taxes is really like.  Why would the
news media say that the literacy rate in Arkansas has risen greatly if it
wasn't true?

Joni :)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Subject: Re: Sex Insurance
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 12:02:16 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.003546.7940@ads.com> charleen@ADS.COM (Charleen Bunjiovianna) writes:
>
>How very chivalrous of you, Dano dear.
>
>Now, run along and go carry some lady's packages for her.
>
>Charleen

	How very chauvanistic of *you* Charleen.  If all the women like
	you who *truely* didn't want doors held open ALSO would
	accept the RESPONSIBILITIES of their independance, then
	*WE* wouldn't have to pay child support.

	Now run along and raise some kids as a single parent with
	nobody "carrying" you.

-- 
	Alan Yasutovich
	"inquiring  (and nosey) minds WANT TO KNOW!!!"
	I can remember when "safe sex" meant having a padded headboard!!
	Tick Tock.....Tick Tock......Tick Tock .....Tick Tock......
Xref: sparky soc.men:15311 soc.women:15582 alt.child-support:2833
From: harkcom@spinach.pa.yokogawa.co.jp (Alton Harkcom)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: chauvinistic Posts
Date: 17 Aug 92 07:49:22 GMT
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: Yokogawa Electric Corporation, Tokyo, Japan
In-reply-to: jcr@milton.u.washington.edu's message of 11 Aug 92 20:36:26 GMT

In article <1992Aug11.203626.9230@u.washington.edu> jcr@milton.u.washington.edu
   (Mr. EuStress) writes:

 =}Alton Harkcom writes:
 =}> It depends.  If he took the time to find a woman that will allow
 =}> him that choice then yes he does.  If he didn't and ended up with a
 =}> woman who refuses an abortion then he must face up to his responsibility.
 =}
 =} That's it -- blame the man for picking the wrong woman.

   If the man picked the wrong woman then he deserves the blame for it...

 =} Alton is a good example of "men who hate men".

   I have said nothing to that effect.  There was nothing in my posts
that implied this either.

 =} I don't suppose that Alton thinks she has a mind 
 =} of her own -- one that can change.

   To the contrary.  And as I explained in email if she claimed that she
would get an abortion before sex but changed her mind later then she
should be entitled to nothing from the man.

 =} Every poster who is against "Equal Male Choice"
 =} as demonstrated Male chauvinism.

   Another generalization to try and cover your lack of an arguement
that comes even close to being rational?

   I have not claimed to be against "Fair Male Choice" [whether that
is the same as Equal Male Choice is left open to debate] I have only
claimed to be against those who made the wrong choice and don't want
to face up to the results.

 =} What about the child?  It gets abused because it's unwanted.
 =} Souldn't everyone have "unwanted-child" insurance?

   Everybody knows insurance sucks.  But for those who lack foresight
then it can come in handy...

* If you want to carry on an intelligent discussion then please get over
	the immature flaming bit...
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Some Politically Incorrect questions
Date: 23 Aug 92 02:57:55 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Penn State Computer Science

In article <1992Aug15.075051.21583@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>In article <1992Aug14.092235.1@mdcbbs.com> rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:
>
>>  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.

Because no law would support a man's choice to do so.

Can you say, "Deadbeat"?  [Or "imputed earnings"?  Or "loss of custody"?]

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu
Xref: sparky soc.men:15079 soc.women:15346 alt.child-support:2771 alt.dads-rights:2012
From: brunner@practic.com (Thomas Eric Brunner)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Equal Male Rights
Date: 17 Aug 92 04:59:33 GMT
Reply-To: brunner@practic.UUCP (Thomas Eric Brunner)
Organization: Practical Computing Inc., Sunnyvale

In article <1992Aug14.000117.23988@nsc.nsc.com> jrr@nsc.nsc.com (Jerry Roe) writes:

[among other things, omitted]

>                            If she chooses to give birth and give up the
>child for adoption, the man has no right to the child, in almost all
>jurisdictions.

This is not the case in California, I don't have a case law cite handy but
I'm 99% sure that the non-married putative father may move in family court
for a custody hearing, and retains standing in dependency hearings. There
may even be a dependency-direct route for the claiment parent, as there is
for other persons with standing for visitation in family court, and who
are parties at interest in dependency court.

Now, to put soc.* and alt.abortion* in my a.c-s kill file...

-- 
#include <std/disclaimer.h>
Eric Brunner 4bsd/RT Project
inet: brunner@monet.berkeley.edu		uucp: uunet!practic!brunner
trying to understand multiprocessing is like having bees live inside your head.
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Tired of that subject
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 15:47:24 GMT

> = (Hillel) writes:
>>SN> = Steve Novak:

>>SN> C'mon.  Are you saying the number of single fathers is anywhere CLOSE to
>>SN> the number of single mothers?  Are you really unaware that a man who
>>SN> impregnates a women can just go spelunking in New Zealand, and the heck
>>SN> with the woman?

>First we get a long lecture how *hard* it is for a woman to fly 
>to another state to have an abortion.  

Wasn't me, but I'll take it up:

Let's see: a mother has a net salary of, say, $450 a month.  Where's she
gonna get the money to fly?

When did you turn into such an insensitive elitist jerk?  Everyone in the
country doesn't have a cushy computer job; welcome to the real world.

>Next we get another, even more Politically Correct, lecture about how
>easy it is for a man to move to another country for good.

Of course, I never said "for good". 

I love the cowards who use the term "Politically Correct" for "I have no
idea how to respond to truth, so I'll twist your words and whine anyway".

The point, Oh Dense One, is that at any time while a woman is pregnant
the man can get up and leave.  Doesn't HAVE to be another country.  Could
be another town or state.  Sorry if I baffled you.  A determined man will
NOT get caught for child support.  Even if he does, it would at least
delay for a time financial support (not to mention emotional) for the
woman he impregnated.

The woman at this point could get an abortion.  Unless they're made
illegal. 

Is *your* point that it's the same for the pregnant woman as the man who
impregnated her?  Open your eyes.


-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: soc.men