HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: pro-choice == pro-(womens' only) choice?
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com
Date: 14 Apr 92 10:10:26 GMT
Organization: M&E (Division of EDS), Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: mdhc


In article <1992Apr12.193027.6299@cco.caltech.edu>, peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
> rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:
>>  As a divorced mother, you would. The father gets NO deduction
>>for the child support he pays, but the mother gets the tax deduction for
>>the child in her custody!
> 
> This is not a gender difference -- if the father had custody HE would 
> get the deduction and the mother would no be able to deduct HER support
> payments.
> 

 That's assuming a 5/50 split in custody. Right now, 90% of disputed custody
goes to the mother. While technically a violation of the 14th
amendment, the "Tender Years" doctrine is still enforced via
judicial bias.



<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com Homo Cyberneticus-Computational Man  |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|   I don't have anything against you...........but I wish I did!  :)    |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Xref: sparky soc.men:8137 alt.dads-rights:639 soc.women:8712
From: stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Q the fake
Date: 15 Apr 92 17:32:06 GMT
Distribution: na

kenneth@ducvax.auburn.edu writes

+ If he weren't so "wealthy," I'd send him a dollar so he could buy a clue.
+ What a doorknob.

You mean a doorknob of a kender, dontcha???

K'Char
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct
From: bev@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu (Beverly Huntsberger)
Subject: Re: Men Are Not Cost Effective
Organization: Univ. of South Carolina, Columbia
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 17:01:31 GMT

In <1992Apr7.232943.29322@panix.com> pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich) writes:


>Idunno. What struck me immediately is the interesting set of parallels
>between taxing men because they form the preponderance of the criminal
>class and discriminating against women in employment because they form 
>the preponderance of the take-time-away-from-career class. 

>On the one hand, the proprtions are different; one the other hand,
>so is the social utility. Comments?

>paul

	Comments? Yes. If you are an employer, and you hire
	a women who does not perform her job to your standards,
	you have many options, beginning with talking it over
	with her and negotiating a deal which satisfies you
	both. This is a two way street in fact, and really
	only relates to "women-only", in the sense that it's
	been women who have been making progress in this area.

	Example: I like my job. I don't like 40 hour work weeks,
	"publish or perish models", stale, cramped environments,
	etc. I negotiated a deal with my dean, so that I work
	fewer hours. I work a flexible schedule. I have the
	office environment I wanted. And I am not responsible
	for a quota of publications. In exchange, he gets to
	pay me less money and wastes less time trying to "keep
	track of me". We worked out an individually tailored
	deal that we both like. Until recently, this sort of 
	negotiation of "the job" was considered absurd by many,
	impossible by most, and even now is still thought to
	be radical, foreign or even a "women's thing".

	In conclusion, consider that IF women indeed constitute
	"the preponderance of the take-time-away-from-career
	class", perhaps it's not necessarily a criminal attitude.
	Maybe, you'll slowly begin to notice a few brave men
	following suit. Perhaps, someday, the idea  will be
	generally accepted.

	It may just be our salvation, but if someone wants to
	believe there's something criminal about taking
	time away from career, they might wake up someday, stuck
	in a job they hate, working hours they can't cope with
	for a boss they can't communicate with. Sound familiar
	to anyone?

		Curious how these "women's things" tend to
	get associated with crime when they first start to become
	empowering (for anyone). It has to with WHO is defining
	"crime" in society. As in: which class?

Bev
-- 
-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Just read his lips:
Now, he wants us to believe in the "tooth fairy".
-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Xref: sparky soc.men:8578 soc.women:9104 soc.singles:11483
From: cnh5730@maraba.tamu.edu (Charles Herrick)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Mixed Couples -= racism lives =- (was: Older men and younger women (advice needed)
Date: 9 Apr 92 23:05:30 GMT

Dan Welch writes

> In article <12075@tamsun.tamu.edu> cnh5730@maraba.tamu.edu (Charles  
Herrick) writes:
> >  For a while I was dating a Korean female (actually, I  
> >never date American females anymore, but that's another story :-),
> > and I never ceased to be amazed at how puposefully-rude 
> > people were willing to be. 

[...]
> My fiance is Korean by birth and Chinese by descent.  
[...] 
> most of the time I get
> a blank stare when I talk of the problems of an interracial  
relationship;
> most people don't consider me to be in one.


This reminds me of a statement they put on a trailer for the nightly news  
on TV.

% of people over 50 who read a newspaper each day: 65
% of people under 30 who read a newpaper each day: 40


Do you think this is related?


Is it possible people think the only races are white and black?
From: slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: You want to win(Men's rights and Women's rights).
Date: 14 Apr 92 13:46:30 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Apr14.134630.4326
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame

In article <8207@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul) writes:
>susan larsen writes
>
>+ For the sake of argument, assume that Suzanne here is 
>+ correct in her assumption that abortions will become 
>+ illegal.  Let us leave the exceptions to be cases of 
>+ rape, incest, and overt threat to maternal health.
>+ 
>+ How would the picture change?  How should it change?
>+ Or would it?
>+ 
>+ Feedback?
>
>Then men and women are even: no choice whatsoever.
>
>K'Char

Not necessarily.  It is my understanding that when a 
child is born out of wedlock, the mother's consent is 
the only one necessary to place the child up for 
adoption.  


Sue Larsen
slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu
From: slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: You want to win(Men's rights and Women's rights).
Date: 15 Apr 92 18:27:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Apr15.182710.4645
Organization: University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame

In article <703350773@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>In article <1992Apr13.203829.19036@news.nd.edu> slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu 
>(susan larsen) writes:
>
>>For the sake of argument, assume that Suzanne here is 
>>correct in her assumption that abortions will become 
>>illegal.  Let us leave the exceptions to be cases of 
>>rape, incest, and overt threat to maternal health.
>
>>How would the picture change?  How should it change?
>>Or would it?
>
>My idea is to have choice for men if and only if abortion
>is legal in the state where the future mother lives.
>
>The idea is that if it is *her* choice not to have an abortion 
>then she should be the one who pays for that choice (or gives
>the newborn up to adoption).
>
>Fair enough?

Hillel's post hints at a more likely future scenario than 
my first post; that being if RvW is overturned then we shall 
see a patchwork of laws at the state level ranging from 
abortion almost at will in some states to abortion being 
treated as murder in other states.

So, I ask again, how could, would and should reproductive 
rights be apportioned given a nation with a smorgasbord of 
abortion and reproductive legislation?

Just to get folks thinking:  How would the situation be 
treated when a woman maintains residency in a pro-life 
state, the man who impregnates her resides in a pro-
abortion state and they are both going to school in a 
pro-abortion state? Or in a pro-life state?

How would we reconcile, through the equal protection laws, 
a class of men in one state being held liable for any 
and all children they sire and not in another?  Or a class 
of children in one state who legally are denied the support 
of two parents vis-a-vis children of a state in which 
fathers and/or mothers are aggressively pursued for support?

Should residents of a given state fund, through 
federal dollars, the children of welfare mothers whose 
fathers legally opted out of support obligations in 
another state?

Any thoughts on this?  Other scenarios?  Feedback?


Sue Larsen
slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu
From: Stafford@vax2.winona.msus.edu (J Stafford)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: woman's choice of bio father in marriage
Date: 16 Apr 92 19:07:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: msus1.1992Apr16.130710.367
Organization: msus

Jim Bowery asked:
> How do people feel about making the choice of biological father
> legally the woman's choice without the knowledge or consent of
> the husband?
 
I _feel_ rotten about it, but that is just feeling.  However, it seems 
consistent with a woman's insistence that she has exclusive and complete 
control of her own body, doesn't it?  (OK, guys, let's hear that old
'wallet impact' argument again.)

> How do people feel about openly instituting polygyny as a recognized form
> of marriage?

 Well, if we are going to recognize the ancient social device called marriage,
we should recognize polygymy.  It may be healthier for society.  It would
certainly be living more honestly.
From: dwelch@devnull.mpd.tandem.com (Dan Welch)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Mixed Couples -= racism lives =- (was: Older men and younger women (advice needed)
Date: 9 Apr 92 19:56:06 GMT
Organization: Tandem Computers (MPD) Austin, TX

In article <12075@tamsun.tamu.edu> cnh5730@maraba.tamu.edu (Charles Herrick) writes:
>Janet M. Lafler writes
>> Some types of relationships (e.g. gay
>> or lesbian relationships, interracial relationships, relationships in  
>which
>> there's a big age difference) are not socially approved, and you can get  
>real
>> flak about this - sometimes from total strangers.  
>
>This is very true. For a while I was dating a Korean female (actually, I  
>never date American females anymore, but that's another story :-), and I  
>never ceased to be amazed at how puposefully-rude people were willing to  
>be. 
>
>I had a Chinese girlfriend for a while and noticed the same thing.

Silly!  It's not an interracial relationship unless she's black (assuming
you're white, of course).  The above was probably just bad breath, or
something.  :^)

Actually, kidding aside, something that I have noticed is that the media,
when they do talk about interracial relationships, only refer to black/white
ones.  It bothers me, because the differences between races are small compared
to the differences between cultures.

I think that most of the attention of the media is focused on how the couple
fits into society, not on the problems they may have coming from different
backgrounds.  Kind of a shame.  My fiance is Korean by birth and Chinese by
descent.  The differences between us are much greater than between two people
born and raised here, regardless of there race, but most of the time I get
a blank stare when I talk of the problems of an interracial relationship;
most people don't consider me to be in one.

Daniel Welch
----
One time I asked him if he liked grouper fish, and he didn't know whether I
wanted to hear that he ate them, or just admired them.

				- Jane Sibbery, "Extra Executives"
From: kranitz@mr.med.ge.com (Wes Kranitz 4-6857 MRCE)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: overtime
Date: 6 Apr 92 15:04:19 GMT
Article-I.D.: dspalley.KRANITZ.92Apr6100419
	<1992Apr2.191803.28657@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> <2661@unisql.UUCP>
	<1992Apr4.003015.28827@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: GE Medical Systems

David,

I agree with you. I have worked for a lot of companies over the last 25 years.
Their all the same. They give you this big talk about being loyal and being for
the team. Then they turn around and give the raises and promotions to friends.
The other game they pull is the "we were just going to..." game. That is, you
work yourself to death and after seeing the rewards go to the bosses favorates,
you say "the hell with it". They then turn around and give you the "well, we
were just going to give you <a raise, a promotion, etc>" spiel. It's all garbage
designed to exploit the naive. You kill yourself and they put the money in their
pockets. On the last day I worked for one company, I asked them why all the effort
and loyality wasn't rewarded. I was told "If your stupid enough to put out all that
effort without reward, who am I to stop you"!

I think Wharfie has a lot to learn. I did. That's why I own my own businesses. I
also do computer work as a contracter and get paid by the hour. No more bullshit
about loyality and team spirit!

Wes
From: stougheric@bvc.edu (The Wease)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: The Getting Screwed Saga...
Date: 14 Apr 92 17:11:37 CDT
Organization: Buena Vista College, Storm Lake, IA

In article <1992Apr14.210708.9397@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>, mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mikeey J. Lin) writes:
> 
> 	Wow! That was indeed a Saga. If it makes you feel any better,
> I've been screwed by the same girl since HS at least half a dozen times.
> Well, she managed to affect that many of my relationships. And yes, my last
> relationship ended a couple of months ago. This time it was a bit better
> though. She did not screw up the my relationship with this girl, I screwed
> it up myself. Ahhh... I must be improving...NOT! Hmmm... I guess my last
> girlfriend was right. Telling someone "I love you" is your way of giving 
> them permission to screw you over. Any comments? (sorry S.G.)
> 
> 						Mikeey
> 
> PS Sorry dudes, can't share personal experiences on the Net. At least,
>    not till I get settled. Yeah, I'm new. What's your problem?  #:-)

	Hey, I'm new too...but I SHARED MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCES!! 
Hahahahahahahahahahhaha....

	I have to agree...saying "I love you" is just a way of
opening the door to getting screwed...glad you enjoyed the story!!!

	Talk later...

	Eric
-- 


--------------------------------------------------------------
 +                                                          +
 +  Now, here's what's known as a radio cut,                +
 +     when you can't say sh*t and you can't say f*ck...    +
 +	                                                    +
 +			"Freedom of Speech"                 +
 +                        	-Above the Law              +
 +                                                          +
--------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: jwelnak@xraylith.wisc.edu (John Welnak)
Subject: Re: You want to win.
Organization: Center for X-ray Lithography, UW-Madison
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 16:08:52 GMT

In article <43582@as0c.sei.cmu.edu> firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes:
>In article <1992Apr14.025246.17377@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> hpzg0650@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Hale P Zengingonul) writes:
>
>>  I can't believe there are women around who are against abortion.
>
>Given that, worldwide, the biggest single use of abortion is to kill
>unwanted female foetuses before they become unwanted girl babies,


this is a joke, right? there aren't really people that think like this?

[stuff deleted]


>The interesting question, surely, is this: how long until women
>who are for abortion have eliminated themselves from the gene pool?

this is surely a joke.....
From: stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: flames (was: You want to win.)
Date: 15 Apr 92 17:07:45 GMT
Distribution: na

Keith A. Cochran writes

+ Note how Steve has now dropped all pretense of humanity, and just admitted  
that
+ it's ok if some women get killed, as long as you don't touch my Holy Fetus.
+ 
+ This thing (I hesitate to use the word "man" or "human" on something that
+ obviously has no compassion) is sick.  Very sick.

What humanity is there in abortion? What difference does it make if you
kill them before they are born or after? Please explain this to me.

K'Char
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: A comment on companies
Date: 10 Apr 92 13:13:06 GMT
Reply-To: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <34146@unix.SRI.COM> maslak@unix.SRI.COM (Valerie Maslak) writes:
>There's one facet of wharfie's arguments thast has been missed so
>far, but that many friends of mine are all too aware of: 4 out of 5
>startups fail.

	I was listening to a Grateful Dead tape on the way to work today 
(so what else is new? :-) and this song-fragment expresses my feelings
about this discouraging possibility better, or at least in better rhythm,
than I could:

	"Since it costs a lot to win
	and even more to lose,
	you and me gotta spend some time
	wondering what to choose.
	Goes t'show you don't ever know,
	watch each card you're playin',
	play it slow.
	Wait until that deal comes round,
	don't ya let that deal go down, oh no..."

>But to moan and complain because everyone doesn't think
>that your goals and values are the only worthy ones...

	What I'm sad/mad about is not that people don't think they're 
the only worthy ones, but that many don't seem to except them at all and
spend bandwidth trying to convince me that I'm brainwashed or braindamaged
for not doing whatever it is *they're* doing.  Oh well.  Not only don't I
really care _what_ they think, but I've *already* got a contingency plan
in case they're right. 

>serial killers and drive-by shootings and gang rapes in Central Park 

	Yow!  Look!  Up in the sky!  It's a bird! It's a plane!  It's a
Leap of Logic!  "Because small startups can't afford a year of paid leave for
their ****female**** staff members the End of Western Civilization is at hand."

	Sheesh.
					gotta get down to the Cumberland mine,

								the wharf rat
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: The Gender Lie
Date: 8 Apr 92 23:18:56 GMT
Reply-To: wrat@rambler.UUCP (wharfie)
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <8g6wiB1w164w@netlink.cts.com> jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
>For homosexual behavior to express at the levels it does in the 
> [ and etc. ]

	I'm not sure what your point is here...  In any case, I think
you're misinterpreting the evidence.  I think that we all have the
potential to respond to *any* member of either sex in these ways, but
that *purely* *social* factors govern how much of these...affections...
are ever displayed.

>Finding the evolutionary origin of homosexuality is the real puzzle here.
>If that can be identified, society can adapt appropriately.

	How about just treating them like anyone else?  I mean, exactly
what adaptions are necessary?  Besides not teaching kids that gay people
should be hit with bats or whatever...

	I guess what makes this a men's issue is that calling a guy a
"faggot" is still a good way to start a fight in most places...  

	Hey, aren't you the "shallow culture/deep culture" guy?
								wr


Newsgroups: soc.men
From: learn@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (William Vajk (igloo))
Subject: Re: Smelling The Roses 
Reply-To: learn@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (William Vajk (igloo))
Organization: Dares No Organization Like Dis Orgainzation
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 14:58:46 GMT

In article <2702@unisql.UUCP> wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie) writes:

>	Not only isn't that part about the house&car true here, but Dr. Won
>Kim, the CEO of Unisql, has been a widely-respected researcher in the field
>for 20 years.  Why should he *not* be paid what he's worth?  

I thought you wanted to pay people for what they produced. Does he
actually produce to the extent to which he is being paid?

>	Ahhhh.  Since *you* knew greedy incompetent managers who took
>advantage of their subordinates, you assume everyone else is like that. Why
>is it so hard to believe that people can be treated fairly?

Fair is a sliding scale, along with the other values we've been discussing.

>	I think this will be my last reply to all these sour-grapers:
>"I was a bad boss so your boss is too" "My company screwed me so yours
>is screwing you" "Why are you being dedicated and loyal? You're just being
>played for a fool."  For such wise and wordly people, none of you seem very
>happy with the choices you've made in the past...

Sorry this has become a religious isue with you, wharfie. It seems I
struck a nerve when I guessed you bought into hype.

Bill Vajk
From: slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: You want to win(Men's rights and Women's rights).
Date: 16 Apr 92 21:09:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Apr16.210959.5291
Organization: University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame

In article <1558@tymix.Tymnet.COM> baba@Tymnet.COM (Duane Hentrich) writes:
>In article <1992Apr16.161441.28735@news.nd.edu>, slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:
>|> I do not feel 100% comfortable with advocating enforced 
>|> male sterilization.
>
>Bwahahah! This is either the funniest or saddest statement I've seen on usenet
>in ages. Talk about your (hopefully) basic uunderstatement.
>
>In case it's not clear: 
>	KEEP YOUR GOD DAMNED GOVERNMENTAL HANDS OUT OF MY SCROTUM.

Gosh, statements drawn singularly from posts without the context 
sure do seem odd.

So now you have an inkling of how I feel:

	KEEP YOUR GOVERNMENTAL HANDS OUT OF MY WOMB.

Sue Larsen
slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: chungkuo@ais.org (Shawn FitzGerald)
Subject: A neat story, and a question.
Organization: UMCC
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 17:21:58 GMT

I work in a computer lab at a community college in Michigan. Whiloe working,
a group of users and another consultant were engaged in conversation with
me. Topics included masturbation, sex, feminism, and religion. A user
overheard some thing I said, most of which she found offensive. It should be
noted that I did not start this conversation, in addition I also tried to
quite it down when it seemed to be getting too loud. I am now in Deep Doo
Doo, or at least there is a very real potential for me to be in said Doo
Doo.

Addmitedly, as far as proffesional conduct is concerned, I probably should
not have openly discussed masturbation while working (why not though?).
However, I have been informed that making comments that "are sexual, or
could be construed as sexist" are grounds for a sexual harrassment charge. I
do not know who my accuser is, nor have I ever spoken to her. Yet, according
to some people around here (faculty of the college, and my supervisors), the
simple fact that this woman was in the room is reason enough to "get me."

(Oh, it should also be noted that this particular computer lab isn't a
typical one in which everyone sits at their cold terminal and utters not a
word. And where 'consualtants' do little more than fix printer mis-feeds. In
this lab, people actualy talk. There's a certain sense of camraderrie [sic?]
among both the users and the consultants. There is often discussion going on
about a great many things.)

Hopefully this will not get me expelled. My supervisors have basically told
me to 'be carefull.' However, I can't help but be totaly pissed off. Not at
this woman (whomever she may be), but that SHE'S TECHNICALLY RIGHT. 

I'd like to know if there is some place FTPable that archives sexual
harrassment policies. I can't believe saying something that "offends"
somebody in a room, when you've NEVER spoken to them or even know who they
are can be termed 'sexual harrassment.'\

"Oh, and if I offended you I'm sorry, but maybe you needed to be offended.
Well, here's my apology and one more thing. FUCK YOU!!"
    --Suicidal Tendancies

-- 
   Shawn FitzGerald           |   chungkuo@ais.org
   (Rational Romantic         |   University of Michigan
    Mystic Cynical Idealist)  |   Computing Club
"I love you so I keep dreaming . . ." -Bananas, _The House of Blue Leaves_