HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: xenon@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: War on Fathers (was: StipU whatever
Date: 6 Nov 92 21:52:15 -0500
Summary: Even good fathers are disposable
Distribution: world
Organization: Carnegie Mellon Computer Club



Adrienne Regard writes:

> In article <Bx7FwF.2E9@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
> >Men are burdened just as fully by fundamentalists.  Why do you
> >think "deadbeat dad" is an easy political target?  A single,
> >unmarried or divorced father is a sinner, hence undeserving
> >of anything except the bill.
> 
> Ah, but there is the upside, too.  FATHERS who attend PTA meetings, or
> field trips with their kids, or go to the grocery store with little Johnney
> in the basket are positively fawned upon for their fatherliness, whereas
> women are just doing their duty (-:.

True enough... men are encouraged to become so-called 'new-style' 
fathers, emotionally and physically involved in the child-rearing 
process.  However, all of that changes pretty drastically if Wifey 
decides that she doesn't want him around anymore.  The *divorced* father 
is regarded as irrelevant and disposable, and usually as an out-and-out 
villain to boot.  Suddenly he is no longer welcome at PTA meetings or 
field trips, and he's lucky if he even SEES his kids more than a few 
hours a week.  His money is still welcome though, typically 25-30% of 
his GROSS income, even if it puts him below the poverty line.  If he 
loses his job the child support payments continue to fall due, and he 
may be jailed as a 'deadbeat dad'.  If his ex-wife gets a new boyfriend 
who abuses his kids, he will be dismissed as a jealous troublemaker if 
he reports it.  If he fights for custody there is a 95% probability that 
he will lose, especially if his ex-wife uses the 'atom bomb' of custody 
disputes, the false accusation of molestation.  Then the hapless ex-
dad's interest in spending time with his children will be deemed a 
suspicious, 'inordinate preoccupation' with children.  No matter what he 
does, he loses. 

What is going on in the divorce courts of America is nothing less than a 
war against fathers and fatherhood, perpetrated by an unholy alliance of 
self-righteous social workers, man-haters, and judges wallowing in the 
egotistical fantasy of themselves as noble saviours of oh-so-grateful 
women.  What they are creating is a nation of children without fathers, 
and an ever-growing body of impoverished, disempowered, rootless and 
angry men.  

- xenon

"Every day the bucket goes to the well.
One day the bottom is gonna drop out."

                      -- Bob Marley


  


be
.  , a *suspicious*
but in the event of divorce, the picture changes pretty
drastically.  The new-s
From: rons@hardy.u.washington.edu (Ronald Schoenberg)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: compromise (was Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Date: 9 Nov 92 17:55:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Nov9.175521.26909
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Nov7.211347.15061@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
>In article <1992Nov6.163937.5772@u.washington.edu>
>rons@hardy.u.washington.edu (Ronald Schoenberg) writes:

[deleted material]

>
>>  That
>>any woman hasn't acquired control of wealth isn't her fault (mostly),
>
>With the exception of professional sports (which isn't open to most
>men, either) any avenue I can think of that's open to men is also open
>to women.
>


>
>>>> If men as a whole would give up their control of wealth, give women a
>>>> chance to earn their own way - and this would require decent child
>>>> care at a price that doesn't completely negate their salaries - then I
>>>> suspect that the need for women to exercise their leverage would disappear.
>
>There is no "need" for women to exercise their leverage.  For those
>who do, they do so because they want to (presumably, it's the easiest
>way for them).  If women could do as well as men in the working world
>(they do, given equal education, experience, and effort, but you don't
>believe that), some women would do so; others would do whatever they
>think is easiest.
>
>
>Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com

As I've noted in another post, this discussion group is in a sorry
state if it really believes that women are economically equal to men.
We could trade personal anecdotes all day, but we would be just
pointing out a few trees in the forest.  That men control the political
and economic activity of this planet is supported by a great deal of
research evidence, it appears that such evidence would be unlikely to
sway people who prefer to see only the trees in their immediate
vicinity (and, no doubt, are even unable to see the trees in their
immediate vicinity that fail to support them).
Xref: sparky soc.men:19128 soc.women:19381
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: An Open Letter to Bill Clinton
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com (Michael Rivero)
Date: 11 Nov 92 16:41:36 PDT
Distribution: world
Organization: M&E (Division of EDS), Cypress CA

In article <1992Nov9.070302.26503@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct30.014455.22581@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
|> >
|> >"I know how awful it is for a kid to never grow up, because somewhere out 
|> >there, there is some mother who aborted her or him.  I just -- it infuriates 
|> >me.  And so, do I think we ought to have a Draconian system to make sure that 
|> >we save babies?   I sure do.  I really believe that.  I do."
|> 
|> Oh, come on, Will. That's not the same thing at all. An aborted child NEVER
|> KNOWS that it is aborted. Never feels deprived or "different". It never cries. 
|> It never suffers. Please try to make a reasonable comparison.
|> 
|> 								- Kevin


  How can you make such a statement? At 7 weeks, the major 
structures of the brain and central nervous system are clearly defined and 
recent studies at U.C.L.A. have demonstrated that there is 
neurochecmical activity present.  Mothers who undergo a saline
abortion have reported feeling the fetus struggling and convulsing as it dies.
The vacuum method amounts to little more than a garbage disposal, and any
living thing that goes down one of those, even a fly, will be made to feel
pain.

  The fact is that we show far more compassion in the manner in which we 
execute our convicted criminals than in how we kill the unborn. Believing
that they do not feel it or suffer is like telling ourselves that lobsters 
don't really feel it when you plop them into the boiling water. It's
a convenient lie we use to assuage our misgivings. 



<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com  "Middle-aged Mutant Ninja Animator" |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|   Lobsters DO feel pain. I peeked once, and that was a very pissed     |
|  off crustacean inside that pot; I haven't had lobster since.          |                                         |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
From: sobleski@sol4.cs.psu.edu (Mark Sobolewski)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Movie Review: T&L (was Re: Let's Play Truth and Honesty)
Date: 13 Nov 92 02:37:25 GMT
Organization: Penn State Computer Science

bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
>Some of the reviews of Thelma and Louise disturb me.  They seem to me
>like analyzing 'Bonnie and Clyde' in terms of the Marxist dialectic -
>starring Bonnie and Clyde as 'the proletariat' with their eventual
>death being not justice, but rather a result of Opression by the Evil
>Capitalistic System.
>
>I suppose that's one way of looking at the movie, but it *does* seem to have
>a definite axe to grind :-).

I rented the movie along with my mother and (then) girlfriend.  From
3 generations and 2 sexes:

The movie was boring.  My mother wouldn't let me eject the film (polish
frugality again :-) so we watched it to the end.  There wasn't enough
action and the characters were two dimensional.  Nobody actually seemed
to enjoy themselves or get into the acting, and a lot of it just seemed
to drag on...  Then again, when was propoganda ever fun? :-)

-- 
Mark Sobolewski   sobleski@cs.psu.edu    *!psuvax1!sobleski
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: the BA-TA get-together shindig blowout!!
Organization: LLNL
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 01:20:22 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.045435.22775@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>Let's do it again, and this time actually invite Chaney.  If Larry can
>make the trip from the East Coast, surely Chaney can drive 2.5 hours. ;-)
>I'll buy him a drink, if he turns out to be old enough.

	Or better yet, go by train. There is now an Amtrak train that
runs three times a day, both directions, between the Bay Area and
Sacramento. It stops at San Jose (the CalTrain station), Oakland,
Berkeley, and Richmond (the BART station), as well as in Sacramento
(pretty much in the middle of town). The trains include a cafe car
with tables, so you can eat as you go. Round-trip fare should be about
$24. Amtrak's toll-free number: 1-800-USA-RAIL. Timing:

San Jose -- Sacramento: ~3 hours
Richmond -- Sacramento: ~2 hours

	Maybe you people can go to Sacramento to descend on our
favorite Borg some time :-) And see what kind of accumulation of
aerospace hardware he has :-):-)

/Loren
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: compromise
Date: 7 Nov 92 19:41:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BxD2p5.3BJ.2
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Distribution: na
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon


[Since this is solely about abortion, follow-ups set to talk.
abortion]
In article <BxCtI5.8ut@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
#In article <XPTSBFRQ@cc.swarthmore.edu> auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer) writes:
##In article <Bx8wxx.6Dz@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

###Any state in the Union can permit an abortion on the day before birth.
###
###"Pro-choicers" sweep this under the rug.  It's not so politically pleasant.
###(Although it is politically correct.)
##
##We don't sweep it under the rug, we are quite happy about it.  We would be
##happier if there were even fewer restrictions upon abortion roghts.
#
#Who's "we"?  Are you a spokesman?  Finally, a leader arises!
#
#Questions for anybody considering themselves pro-choice: 
#
#.    Does David S. Auer represent the pro-choice movement?
#
#.    Are you "quite happy" with legal abortion on the day before birth,
#     where the mother's health is not threatened?
#
#No; no.

Auer is representative of the pro-choice movement.  The official
position of most groups that support legal abortion is that
abortion is a medical procedure, and as such, the decision to
have an abortion should be left up to the pregnant woman and
the attending physician and not subject to legal restrictions
beyond those that apply to all other medical procedures.

I am quite happy with the notion that abortions should be freely
available to any woman who requests one and has a doctor who
is willing to perform the procedure.  I'm not concerned about
the possibility of an abortion the day before birth for several
reasons.  I've seen no evidence that it's ever happened, for one
thing.  I've seen no evidence that there are any doctors willing
to perform such abortions, for another.  I've seen no evidence
that any women have requested that their pregnancies be terminated
and that the fetus be killed at that late stage, either.  I'd
rather that we preserved a woman's right to bodily integrity
than that we enact some laws to make some people feel better
about covering all possibilities.  I'd rather that we not have
government-defined exemptions for politically acceptable
reasons.  I think that the two people actually involved in
the procedure itself are capable of making this decision.

[text deleted]

Susan
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.child.su
From: mc@vicorp.com (Mark Charalambous)
Subject: Re: An Open Letter to Bill Clinton
Organization: V. I. Corporation, Northampton, Massachusetts
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 16:19:55 GMT

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>In article <1992Oct30.014455.22581@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>>
>>In response to Dave Gross's post of a quote by Bill Clinton:
>>
>>Bill "You're no Jack Kennedy, either" Clinton says:
>>
>>"I know how awful it is for a kid to grow up knowing that somewhere out there,
>>there is some father who abandoned her or him.  I just -- it infuriates me.
>>And so, do I think we ought to have a Draconian system of national child
>>support enforcement?  I sure do.  I really believe that.  I do."
>>
>>       -- Bill Clinton, in an interview with Christopher Matthews of
>>          the San Francisco Examiner.  Interview published in Image
>>          magazine, a supplement of the Sunday Examiner, 10/4/92.
>>
>>
>>In our society, such as it is, comments like this, though biased only against
>>the male side of the equation, are cheered and admired.  Now then, just imagine
>>if Bill Clinton had said *this*:
>>
>>"I know how awful it is for a kid to never grow up, because somewhere out 
>>there, there is some mother who aborted her or him.  I just -- it infuriates 
>>me.  And so, do I think we ought to have a Draconian system to make sure that 
>>we save babies?   I sure do.  I really believe that.  I do."

>Oh, come on, Will. That's not the same thing at all. An aborted child NEVER
>KNOWS that it is aborted. Never feels deprived or "different". It never cries. 
>It never suffers. Please try to make a reasonable comparison.

I beg to differ. IMO, an aborted child DOES know that it is being aborted,
and most ecrtainly has a reaction to the pain of it's being killed
which may or may not include the ability to "cry". It may be true that
it won't be aware of the life it could have had, hence feeling deprived
or different in that regard, but it's rights (which it currently doesn't
have in our society, but will one day) have been violated in a manner
much more extreme and vicious than those of an abandoned child. There is
nothing more innocent than an unborn child. 
Sorry, but this just seems logical to me.

--Mark
>								- Kevin

Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 05:23:52 GMT

In article <23764@galaxy.ucr.edu> starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu
(starbuck) writes:

>Sexism is a term that can be defined by the user.

And is therefore meaningless, since it cannot be used to communicate.

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1992 18:43:17 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14k by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In <1992Nov5.225150.29300@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>In article <1992Nov04.212102.27579@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>In article <1992Oct29.154439.6563@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>>>I don't want to take away a woman's right to make this decision; but I truly
>>>believe the father has some rights that are currently being ignored.  The
>>>father deserves some role in the decision, and I don't think requiring a
>>>pregnant woman to get a little input from the father in the decision is such a
>>>bad idea.  It places *more* responsibility on the father.  It also might allow
>>>a father to have a child he truly wants that the mother doesn't.  The final
>>>decision should still be that of the mother.
>>>
>>>Certainly there are tough cases where this simply won't work [many have been
>>>outlined here], but I think it should be the norm.
>>
>>Just curious - what makes you believe that it *isn't* the norm?  Or do
>>you just like making unnecessary laws?
>
>First of all, I didn't say it wasn't the norm, but if you want to claim it's
>implied, fine, I'll retract that.

Well, if we agree that it's the norm, and that it's only in the
"tough cases where this simply won't work" that the man isn't notified,
then there's clearly no need for any laws.

>I still believe that there are a significant number of cases where a father's
>rights are being ignored, and a law to correct this could hardly be called
>unnecessary.

Which gets back to my original question - what makes you believe this?
Do you have any facts?  Just a hunch?  Or what?
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: War on Fathers (was: StipU whatever
Date: 8 Nov 92 00:56:04 GMT
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
>In article <1992Nov7.050116.2959@midway.uchicago.edu>
>

>>How does that effect the income of men and women?  What is the ratio
>>of income in subsequent years to the income before the divorce?
>>
>>                     Years after time t
>>                    1        3         5
>>                 -------------------------
>>women             .81      .97      1.01
>>men               .84      .99      1.03
>>(no divorce)     1.17     1.17      1.28
>
>What's wrong with this picture?

Actually, quite a bit.  Now that I look at the table again, I see the
figure for men that I wrote down, is actually the figure for white women.
Sorry. :)  It should look like this:

                     Years after time t
                    1        3         5
                 -------------------------
women             .81      .97      1.01
men               .93     1.08      1.14
(no divorce)     1.17     1.17      1.28


>Hint: at time t+1, a familty (no divorce) earns 17% more than at time
>t.  If they still don't get divorced at t+1, then at t+2, I'd expect
>them to earn 17% more than at t+1; likewise, at t+3 they'd earn 17%
>more than at t+2.  Yet at t+, they're earning the same as at t+1.

Good point.  Don't know.  

>Furthermore, if a couple gets divorced, their total income increases
>to 1.65 times their pre-divorce income.
>
>Or are you comparing the man's post-divorce income to the man's
>pre-divorce income (and likewise for the woman)?  In that case, how
>can they both be losing money?

Yes, this is a comparison of per capita income.  With the new figures,
I think it makes more sense....   

(The source for this, incidently, is not the same as the source for the
alimony payments and child-support.  These figures come from Duncan
and Hoffman, 1985.  "The Economic Consequences of Marital Dissolution."
Demography 22(4):485-497.  Another paper two years later in the same
journal makes similar claims (Demography 25(4):641-465.))

rini
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father
X-To: DON BEAVER
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 04:34:00 GMT

DB> From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
DB> In article <1c7fbqINNf9u@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah
DB> ) writes:
DB> >Such laws would violate confidentiality of medical records.

DB> Yes, but does the Constitution guarantee a right to the confidentiality
DB> of medical records?  There are lots of related issues (eg. employer
DB> drug-testing, blood tests before marriage, notice to unwed fathers)
DB> that make confidentiality (from state, from employer, from spouse,
DB> from co-parent) a nontrivial question.

DB> Don't forget, for example, that Clinton wants to put fathers'
                                                         ^^^^^^^^
DB> social security numbers on birth certificates -- clearly overstepping
DB> the intended "confidentiality" and purpose of the SS#.


What???  He only wants to put FATHERS' social security numbers on birth
certificates?????

What a hypocrite!

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Click...click...click..damn, out of taglines!
Xref: sparky soc.men:18870 soc.women:19064 alt.abortion.inequity:4945 talk.abortion:47147 alt.feminism:3937
From: forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu (Eric Forbis)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: compromise (was Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Date: 8 Nov 92 03:47:42 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Minnesota

In article <1992Nov4.154804.1308@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> jrmo@volta.att.com (J.R.Moore) writes:
>Xref: news.cis.umn.edu soc.men:18451 soc.women:18427 alt.abortion.inequity:4927 talk.abortion:46108 alt.feminism:3689
>Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
>Path: news.cis.umn.edu!umn.edu!spool.mu.edu!agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!cbnewsk!volta!jrmo
>From: jrmo@volta.att.com (J.R.Moore)
>Subject: compromise (was Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
>Organization: AT&T Bell Labs
>Distribution: na
>Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1992 15:48:04 GMT
>Message-ID: <1992Nov4.154804.1308@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>
>References: <BwyFDw.LJu@cs.psu.edu> <1992Nov3.144951.2536@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> <1d80mlINN74d@gap.caltech.edu>
>Sender: news@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (NetNews Administrator)
>Nntp-Posting-Host: volta.pr.att.com
>Lines: 44
>I hate these abortion discussions.  I have a compromise that will
>not be accepted by the extreme on either side.  I think many of
>the middle dwellers may like it.
>
>Choose a point that marks a time when the pregnancy becomes more
>than a private matter.  Some like to place it at conception, others
>at birth.  Let's just say that we could choose detection of heartbeat
>or brainwaves or viability as that point.
>
>It would be illegal to interfere with the privacy of women and their
>doctors when no evidence of life or no evidence of sustainable life

I don't see how this is "middle of the road"; you assume that spousal 
notification (the subject of this thread) is an attempt to whittle away 
abortion rights, which just isn't the case. You've set your case up to 
completely exclude the issue of father's rights; middle of the road?

I like your reasoning as a compromise for endless abortion debates, however.

>existed in the woman.  Therefore women would be guaranteed the right 
>to choose to terminate a pregnancy without any roadblocks.  And any
>rights granted for any medical reasons would be extended to include
>such procedures (eliminating exceptions for public funding).  Also
>once evidence of life or sustainable life exist, the state has a
>compelling interest to equally protect the lives of both the mother
>and child.  Therefore, no abortions could be performed after that point,
>except in life-threatening cases.
>
>The result would be two-fold.  Women would truly be guaranteed the right 
>choose for somewhere between 8 and 20 weeks.  Women who have not opted
>to terminate pregnancy by default would have freely decided to carry
[material deleted]
>Joe Moore
---------

Eric Forbis      forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu
Xref: sparky soc.men:18650 soc.women:18818 alt.abortion.inequity:4835 talk.abortion:46611 alt.feminism:3701