HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Subject: Re: inequity in child support (was Re: I HAD NO CHOICE
Date: 16 Dec 92 01:11:59 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

>peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>
>> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
>> 
>> >Child support amounts are set based on the noncustodial
>> >parents income or ability to make a set amount. 
>> 
>> You clearly know a great deal about the inequities of the 
>> child support system. What is your interpretation of how
>> these inequities arose in our historically male-dominated
>> court system?  

Hi Michal.

My take is that the courts assume:

   1) regarding money:

	A) women are helpless and unable to provide for
	   theirself and their child[ren].
	B) men are able and supposed to provide for their
	   self, their woman, and their child[ren].

   2) regarding parenting:

	A) women are sweet and kind and loving and warm fuzzy.
	   women are good parents, good nuturers, and good 
	   mommies. women should spend lots of time with their
	   child[ren]. women are good at all the 'taking care of'
	   stuff - diapers and feedings (they even produce baby's
	   first food!) and cleaning and washing. besides, women
	   don't have careers (and real women don't need jobs!).
	B) men aren't mushy. men are often heartless. men are not
	   warm and sweet and supportive. men don't change diapers
	   or nuture. men do tend to show up for their child[ren]'s
	   ball games, which are on the weekend, so men can see the
	   kids then. besides, men work, so they can't take care of
	   their child[ren].

I'd say all of these assumptions suck, particularily since the 
number of people I know who fit these roles is less than the 
number of people I know who DON'T fit these roles. 

-jen
Xref: sparky soc.men:21139 alt.feminism:6005 soc.women:21447
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Privacy in Israel (Was Re: Male Choice Revisited)
Date: 16 Dec 92 02:48:26 GMT
Organization: The Immoral Minority

In article <2968@tymix.Tymnet.COM> baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich) writes:
#Actually she is an Israeli and since Israel is so small I guess everybody
#knows and talks about everybody else. ;^)

In article <1992Dec10.234013.16102@ads.com> charleen@ADS.COM 
(Charleen Bunjiovianna) writes:
>If there was ever a time I wished Hillel were around, this is it.

I'll follow your wish.

For some segments of the Israeli society, what Duane said is not that
far away.  Quite a few secrets just can't be kept secret, as the
censors discover on a regular basis.

But even I got a little shock when I visited a girlfriend in a kibbutz
for the first time and her kid sister (she was 15) went in with the news
of the day: "XXX [some girl's name] from the kibbutz nearby had an
abortion yesterday."  (It was not really news, "everybody" had
already known that...)

Collective lives are definitely not for people who want some privacy.
Xref: sparky soc.men:21146 alt.feminism:6016 soc.women:21452
From: bweiss@cs.arizona.edu (Beth Weiss)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism,soc.women
Subject: Re: What's really behind this "men's choice" thing?
Date: 14 Dec 92 16:24:13 GMT
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: U of Arizona, CS Dept, Tucson

In article <92348.214833U53644@uicvm.uic.edu>, U53644@uicvm.uic.edu writes:
|>         1. I wasn't "silenced", contrary to some comments made. As a few
|>            people on the net will tell you, I respond to harassment with
|>            >successful< litigation. Ms. Weiss was in typical female form in
|>            her response, though - advocating the harassment of someone who
|>            expressed a point of view that she disliked, and too cowardly to
|>            do the illegal act she advocated herself.

I don't recall every advocating harassing anybody.  If someone has some
evidence that I've done so, I would like to see it so that I can be more
careful of my language in the future.

[story of total criminal jerk deleted]

|> Everyone who knew this man commented on how great a catch he was, knowing all
|> of the above. He was better than the other men around - and the other men
|> mostly agreed with this. Does this guy sound at all like a thug to you ?

Actually, he does sound like a thug.  If your ex-girlfriend did this to you,
she sounds like a total criminal jerk too.

|>           1a. Fear. Leads to denial. Men are afraid to say anything
|>               negative about the opposite sex because of fear of
|>               harassment (as Beth Weiss has advocated), social isolation,
|>               possible consequences at work sometimes, loss of

At this point, I'll chalk up this accusation to J Dunphy's confusion.  If,
on the other hand, he is not confused, then he is deliberately accusing me
of soemthing I have never done, and never would do.

--Beth Weiss
bweiss@cs.arizona.edu
Xref: sparky soc.men:21331 alt.dads-rights:2995 alt.abortion.inequity:5986 alt.child-support:3996
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: I HAD NO CHOICE ( was: Biological reasons etc...
From: lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 11:17:02 PST
Organization: The Old Coot's (Spare) Almanac

karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:

> In article <athos-111292122148@kip2-30.apple.com> athos@apple.com (Rick Eames
> >In article <1992Dec11.144451.8946@bmw.mayo.edu>, bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce
> >Cameron) wrote:
> >
> >> So, are you objecting to supporting the children you wanted, or
> >> just pissed off that their mother left you?
> >
> >Actually, it sounds like he's upset that he got a RAW DEAL from the state. 
> >He not only lost his house and his kids, but he also gets to lose a big
> >chunk of his income, keeping him from getting ahead again.  While his
> >ex-wife gets to live in his house with his kids, he gets to live like a
> >slave.  How nice.
> 
 If you are involved with any woman, married or not, you could be the next
> gentleman in this position.  IT CAN HAPPEN TO YOU GENTS.  
> 
 What is this? A wee bit of misogyny?  Talk about inflammatory generalizing!!!
 Not ALL women are nasty, just as not all men are assholes. Your above
 statement further neglects to point out that women are equally vulnerable
 to becoming involved with, and later burned by, men of questionable
 moral character, etc..

 We all know there's a lot of wolves in sheep's clothing out there. The
 question is, how do we turn such folk around so that there's more
 "Win-Win" relationships, and less "I Win, You Lose" nastiness?  Please
  do your part by contemplating the issues --- and possible solutions ---
 with us, and not standing on a platform of such non-productive, destructive,
 and blanket gender-bashing.

Lisa.



               lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca (Lisa Lambeth)
                      The Old Coot's Almanac
               Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada
                    Courtesy the old coot hisse'f!
Xref: sparky soc.men:21267 talk.abortion:52141
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.men,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Male Choice (1)
Date: 16 Dec 92 20:42:08 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: The Piranha Club

#Most good feminists, like Adrienne, fight against "choice for men," even
#when women's choice is pretty secured (like after the last election and
#and Supreme Court decision).

In article <1gnk6eINNhal@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com 
(Adrienne Regard) writes:

>Ah, and now you are lying, too, just for good measure.  I do not and never
>have fought against choice for men.  

When the idea of choice for men was raised in soc.men for the first time
you were around.  You said that you were against that because it would
put men in a worse position.  I did not save your article, but I saved
the exchange we had after I told you that i'd be better off without
such "help":

##############################################################

In article <1990May29.185123.15355@sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.UUCP 
(Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <19863@duke.cs.duke.edu> gazit@romeo.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:
>>Adrienne, I have no unrealistic expectation about you,
>>and I don't ask you to help.
>>I just ask you to stop standing in our way.
>
>Well, too damn bad, Hillel, because you are getting my help whether you
>want it, like it, RECOGNISE it, or not.

###########################################################

Try to *remember* what we talked about and why you decided to give me 
your help against my will before you start talking about "lying;" OK?

>In fact, I'm somewhat sympathetic to some of the arguments.

Do you support the idea of "choice for men" in the first weeks of the 
pregnancy?  Let's hear a clear statement about your current position.

>Adrienne Regard

Hillel                                          gazit@cs.duke.edu

"In her ground-breaking new book, "The Demon Lover: On the Sexuality of
Terrorism," Robin Morgan advances an analysis of terrorism in which the soldier
(the State's hero) and the terrorist (the Revolution's hero) are mirror-image
expressions of male nature, not human nature.  A feminist writer who was once
involved in small, pre-Weathermen, "armed propaganda" groups, Morgan opens a
window of thought and action that lets us move out of a male-centered politics
of Thanatos - the romance of death - into a feminist politics of Eros, a loving
life force. 

The following excerpt, drawn from Chapters 1,5 and 6 of "The Demon Lover,"
shows us how maleness itself becomes the weapon of destruction, and how
women who seek political change are coerced, deceived, and seduced into
fighting for manhood under the illusion that they are ending their own
oppression and creating a humane world."

                                  ---  Ms. magazine, March 1989
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Date: 16 Dec 1992 20:33:25 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:

>Does it make any change in your deep conviction that the
>laws are fair toward men?

Are the laws themselves unfair?  Or is it the interpretaton and
application of the laws in the court system that are unfair?

-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Xref: sparky soc.men:21372 alt.abortion.inequity:6004 alt.feminism:6207
From: x73rl@ll.mit.edu ( Rick LaFave)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Reproductive Technologies / Artificial Wombs
Date: 18 Dec 92 15:14:46 GMT
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory

goid@zooid.guild.org (Will Steeves) notes;
.peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes..
.MLP> forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu (Eric Forbis) writes:
.MLP> >In article <1992Nov30.205233.17925@ll.mit.edu> x73rl@ll.mit.edu ( Rick Laf
.MLP> writes:
.MLP> >>    There will be some degree of risk with this (or any) surgical
.MLP> >>procedure.  Who will get to decide wether the risk is acceptable or not?
.MLP> >>(Insert theme song from final jeopardy) Tick Tock Tick Tock Ding! Give up
.MLP> >>The answer is the female.
.MLP> >>the female involved may simply choose to say 'I don't except
.MLP> >>the risks'.  Then what do you do?
.
.MLP> >Please explain how the _heck_ you came to the conclusion that women will
.MLP> >have control over the life or death of children in incubators?
.
.MLP> I interpret what he said as: women will have control of the surgery
.                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
.MLP> by which the foetus is transferred from the woman's body to an
.     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
.MLP> incubator.  After all, it is the *woman's* body!
.     ^^^^^^^^^
.
.Ah, but should this control be present *if* the transferral operation is
.*safer* than a regular termination operation?  Granted, if it *is* safer,
.then I can imagine a lot of women opting for it, but I can also imagine a
.lot of women in power situations, deliberately choosing the more dangerous
.operation, *just* because she knew that he would have wanted the child...?
.
.Is this fair?  Not to just to him, but for her, either?  Should she be
."allowed" to risk her life, just to spite a man?

  Safer?  Whos to say whats safer or not?  I'll bet its the same person who 
will have to have the operation.  Safer really has very little to do with 
it.  There will be different risks for different procedures and she will 
get to pick what to do just as she does today.  I seriously doubt one could 
show that one particular operation is ALWAYS safer than another.
  Fair?  Fair has nothing to do with it either since IMO any attempt to
guarantee men rights in these areas will be viewed as an infringement on 
female rights, which take precidence.
 
  I suspect that artificial wombs (or whatever ya'call'em) will have 
limited uses, one of which is when she wants the baby but pregnancy is life 
threatening for her.  I really don't see this applied as a real alternative 
to abortion.  It would be nice, but she will always be guaranteed the right 
to do as she sees fit, so I don't see it changing the way way things are for 
men, although it will give women more reproductive choices.
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
From: karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: Artificial Wombs
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 17:33:58 GMT
Organization: MCSNet, Chicago, IL

In article <1g0ilgINNrul@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>
>>If doctors refuse to perform a "current procedure" abortion, but will 
>>perform an incubator transplant (heh, we named the procedure already!) 
>>then the issue of what is legal is moot.  
>
>I find this terminology, with it's implication that the woman in
>a mere "incubator", rather insulting.
>							--  Michal

If you don't view the uterus as an incubator, from a medical sense, just 
what IS it in this context?

--
Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900] Anon. arch. (nuucp) 00:00-06:00 C[SD]T
Request file: /u/public/sources/DIRECTORY/README for instructions
Xref: sparky soc.men:21147 soc.women:21453
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Oh, it's the NO EMAIL guy again...
Date: 14 Dec 92 15:29:37 GMT
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <92348.214833U53644@uicvm.uic.edu> U53644@uicvm.uic.edu writes:
>AS USUAL, E-MAIL RESPONSES ARE NOT WELCOME, THOUGH (OF COURSE) FOLLOWUPS
>ARE PERFECTLY OK (Someone seemed to think I was objecting to those ! Of course
>not ! I just don't promise to read them.)

	This guy writes long bullshit flames and cross-posts them to
half-a-dozen groups.  Then when some poor shmuck who hasn't read all
the way down to line 567 sends him mail Mr. Dunphy calls that guy's
administrator and threatens to sue the company in Federal court and
have their Internet access removed and hold his breath until he turns
blue.  No kidding.

	If this guy is as much of a pinhead as I think he is then
it's no wonder his friends treat him like something you'd scrape off
the bottom of your boots.

	I'd like to publicly ask that the readers of any group he posts
in completely ignore him until Mr. Dunphy is willing to participate
fully and not just use our resources as an outlet for his own angst.

							the wharf rat
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Divorce reform (Was Re: I HAD NO CHOICE)
Date: 20 Dec 92 02:22:28 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: The Scorpions Nest

#A solution that I suggested once was the following arbitration:
#if both parents are competent, let them both submit proposals for
#custody and child's support.  The one who asks for the smaller 
#amount will get the custody of the kids."

#In a system like this, every parent will ask for the amount it really needs
#to support the children, and no more.  Also, because there will not be such
#a financial gain in winning the custody, a compromise will be more likely.
#The small details which are in the center of the court battle today will lose
#their importance because there will have to be a real proof for incompetence.

In article <BzJ3L9.Ew4@ddsw1.mcs.com> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com 
(Karl Denninger) writes:

>Further, let's apply "affirmative action" to these cases.  That is, since
>women win 90% of the divorce custody cases, it is time for men to be given
>preferential treatment in these cases until the ratio reaches that in the
>population -- which is about 49%.  

>Women are to pay child support to these men as well, under the CURRENT
>guidelines (25-40% of their pretax income).

>Is this not fair?

NO.

Affirmative action and similar "solutions" that require a 
different treatment based on race/sex are inherently unfair.

I'm against that.

(I'm willing to support affirmative action by income levels, but
most of the feminists who shout "59 cents!" are against it...)

The solution I suggested is based on *equal* treatment of both
sides, the sex of the parents does not give them any advantage
or disadvantage.

>Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)

Hillel                                          gazit@cs.duke.edu

"When I do it to you it's discrimination,
when you do it to me it's affirmative action."
Xref: sparky soc.men:21045 alt.dads-rights:2906 alt.abortion.inequity:5828 alt.child-support:3921
From: mike@fionn.lbl.gov (Michael Helm)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: I HAD NO CHOICE ( was: Biological reasons etc...
Date: 12 Dec 1992 09:34:43 GMT
Organization: N.I.C.E.
Reply-To: mike@fionn.lbl.gov (Michael Helm)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.128.60

bouche2@server.uwindsor.ca (BOUCHER DAVID            ) writes:
>Now THERE'S a perceptive statement.  How exactly does one "reduce his income
>to zero *without any worries*"???  Become a carefree, happy vagrant and live in

"I can rest when I am tired
& I heed no master's bell,
A man'd be daft to be a king,
When Beggars live so well,
& a-begging I will go, a-begging I will go"

(From the Begging Song)
Xref: sparky soc.men:21005 alt.dads-rights:2891 alt.abortion.inequity:5809
From: baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: I HAD NO CHOICE ( was: Biological reasons etc...
Date: 11 Dec 92 19:50:08 GMT
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: BT North America, San Jose CA.

In article <1992Dec11.144451.8946@bmw.mayo.edu>, bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron) writes:
|> If child support is a percentage, not a fixed amount, then it would seem
|> that the less a man makes, the less he has to pay. Thus he is free to go
|> back to school or otherwise reduce his income to 0 without any worries.

Well, Child support is generally figured as a percentage, at the time of award. 
It is awarded as a dollar amount by payment period, weekly or monthly.
If the NCP's salary goes down for any reason, layoff/take another job/going
back to school, it is virtually impossible to have the award, in
absolute dollars reduced. The reality is if you go into court and ask
for a change in Child Support it will most always change, upward.

|> So, are you objecting to supporting the children you wanted, or
|> just pissed off that their mother left you?

Sounds like he's pissed off because his children have been taken away
from him. Not to be snide or anything but I don't understand why you
don't see that.

-- 
d'baba Duane M. Hentrich	baba@Tymnet.Com

We have yet to learn that the thing uttered in words is not therefore affirmed. It must affirm itself, or no forms of logic or of oath can give it evidence. 
The sentence must also contain its own apology for being spoken. - R.W.Emerson
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.child-support
From: frank@austin.ibm.com (F. Karner)
Subject: Re: I HAD NO CHOICE ( was: Biological reasons etc...
Originator: frank@karner.austin.ibm.com
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 15:02:30 GMT
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division


In article <1992Dec11.144451.8946@bmw.mayo.edu>, bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron) writes:
> In article <2195@newsserver.cs.uwindsor.ca>, bouche2@server.uwindsor.ca (BOUCHER DAVID            ) writes:
> |> 
> |> personally, i don't give a rat's ass about 'reproductive choice', because i
> |> WANTED kids... i loved having them around... i didn't mind changing diapers
> |> or getting up early to help them get dressed for school... i was a good
> |> father, and i did my best to help them grow up strong and self-confident...
> |> my kids used to have a father, but now they have a visitor...
> |> 
> |> i just don't understand how the family courts can be so vicious and so
> |> ignorant... i can't help but wonder... did they have to take EVERYTHING??
> |> 
> 
> So, are you objecting to supporting the children you wanted, or
> just pissed off that their mother left you?
> 
> -- 
> --Bruce
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Bruce M. Cameron		bmc@mayo.edu
> Mayo Foundation			voice: (507) 284-3288
> 200 1st St SW			fax:   (507) 284-9623
> Rochester, MN 55905		ARS -- WD9CKW

What kind of a jerk are you?  That insensitive and offensive remark was
totally uncalled for.  I bet you didn't even take the time to *READ*
what David had to say, just went right for the punch below the belt.

You owe David an apology.
-- 

         DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this posting are mine
            solely and do not represent my employer in any way.
       F. A. Karner AIX Technical Support | karner@austin.vnet.ibm.com
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.feminism
From: "Amy Young Leith" <alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Hooray!!
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 21:31:55 -0500

In article <1992Dec10.020342.15861@netcom.com> tyger@netcom.com (Kristen Kohlbecker) writes:
>wendy@sundown.mil.wi.us writes:
>>that have turned heated, I've gotten mail from men calling me a "stupid bitch"
>>and other such sexual epitaphs. Women's email to me is much more polite and 
>>discussion oriented. When there is some name calling, it isn't anywhere near
>>as vicious or filled with sexual connotations as the mail from men.

Of course, this follows the logic that any woman that doesn't want you
is a stupid, fridig bitch.  Yes, when I respond less than favorably to
a wannafuck, IF they respond, that is ALWAYS the way they chose to
respond. 

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.men
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Subject: Re: "They take their ideology from Mao and their money from Daddy"
Organization: QQQCLC
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 05:34:33 GMT

In article <724823777@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>Sarcasm, of course, is wasted on people with no sense of humor...

	And argument is wasted on people with nothing to say.

						Kayembee
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism,soc.women