HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pepke@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: A modest proposal
Date: 21 Jan 93 22:25:52 GMT
Reply-To: pepke@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Organization: Florida State University, but I don't speak for them

In article <4592@unisql.UUCP> wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie) writes:
> There's no proof that *female* hormones have anything to do with behavior.
> It's obvious that *male* hormones turn an otherwise civilized human being 
> into a violent, lust-crazed, uncontrollable beer-swilling spouse-beating 
> child abuser.

Close, but not quite.

When a change in hormone levels can be shown to increase aggression in men, 
it is proof of men's inherent aggressiveness and violence.

When a change in hormone levels can be shown to increase aggression in women,
it removes from a woman responsibility for the aggression and is a legal 
defense against murder charges.

InnateOrExternal(characteristic)
{
    if (WomenHaveMoreOf(characteristic))
    {
	if (IsGood(characteristic))
	    return INNATE;
	else
	    return EXTERNAL;
    }
    else /*Men have more of*/
    {
	if (IsGood(characteristic))
	    return EXTERNAL;
	else
	    return INNATE;
    }
}

-EMP
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: domestic  violence & the super bowl
Date: 26 Jan 93 18:05:39 GMT
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <1993Jan25.231201.21812@informix.com> mcole@sub-40 (Mary Cole) writes:
>Here's a message I received today. Please add your support to it and help  
>others:

	If my wife starts beating me while I'm watching the game I'll
run screaming to the nearest men's shelter for help.  Promise.

>|For political activists, or media watchdogs, or just concerned women

	Feh.
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: "amy lynn young-leith" <alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Drunk Sex = Rape ? (was Re: Mysogynist Bullshit)
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 18:10:19 -0500

In article <1jl2moINNlq3@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>Karl brings up an interesting question.  Suppose a person (let's remove 
>gender, and just talk about drunkenness) goes to a restaurant and gives
>the key to the valet, then gets drunk, then gets the key back from the
>valet, drives, and gets in a traffic accident.  Is the restaurant 
>liable?

I don't think they are. 

>I believe that CA has a law that hosts who allow party guests to 
>drive home drunk are liable for damages caused if the drunk gets in
>an accident.  Anyone else know more about this?

Again, this is another attempt to pawn off responsability.  Why should
those who sell drinks have to play babysitter?  The same is seemingly
happening with gun sellers as well.  Someone sells a gun by legal
means, and if that gun is used in a murder, the victim's family tries
to prosecute the seller of the gun.  If it's legal to sell guns, then
there's nothing wrong with selling them!  It's the person who uses it
for an illegal use that should be prosecuted!!  What's next, someone
OD's on aspirin, and we sue Krogers because they sold it to them?? 

amy
-- 
alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu for personal mail
			    All business mail to alyoung@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             I.U. probably doesn't agree with me.  I don't speak for
                    them so it doesn't matter, now does it?
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Blatant Sexism (Re: adoption rules)
Date: 28 Jan 1993 07:22:18 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

>>But what if she truly doesn't know -- and can't even guess?  What 
>>if she was raped and doesn't know who raped her?  What if she only
>>knows his firstname (and it's something common like "john")?

> "Don, are you in the habit of having sex with women when you know no more
> about them than their first name? ...
> I think that *most* men know considerably more than that. I also think
> that you are wasting alot of time and energy on a point that is not 
> particularly important"

>          -- Michal Leah Peri, 15 Jan 93, <1j7bp5INN8b7@gap.caltech.edu>

What of it?  There's always a few bad apples.  How would you deal with 
the irrepsonsible ones?

And how would you deal with rape victims? (you might call these the
"unfortunate ones")
-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Impressive amounts of material can be accreted in this manner.
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.dads-rights
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: adoption rules
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 05:24:20 GMT

peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>
>>peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>>
>>>>A mother +should+ be hindered from placing a child for adoption
>>>>if a father has not been "identified." 
>>>
>>>What about births resulting from rape?  This is really adding insult
>>>to injury!
>
>>If it is so, she should have chosen an abortion.


Returning to what you deleted:

>>If it is so, she should have chosen an abortion.  If she decided to have
>>the child, then the child exists.  And, to paraphrase your style of
>>argument, once the child exists, it has a right to its parents.  Both
>>of them, whether in jail or out.  "Insult to injury" of the *mother* is
>>not an overriding force for the child's interests.
>>
>>If she thinks the alleged rapist will harm the child, she can say so -- 
>>and a judge will decide.

It is YOUR style of hardline position that says that
once a child exists, it has a right to its parents.

It is also characteristic of your style of "equality" to claim 
that a man who forces a woman to become a mother should be
denied his parental rights, while a woman who forces a man 
to become a father should not be denied her parental rights
(indeed, she should still be able to deny him his rights!).

Michal, in your opinion, DOES a child have a right to both parents?


>Mighty big of you, Don, to go around telling rape victims that they
>*should* undergo surgery in addition to the harm that has already 
>been inflicted upon them.

I hope that they will be treated as responsible and competent
adults despite being victims of a terrible crime.

I think it's unsympathetic of you to imply otherwise, Michal.
You only degrade them more.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
From: pepke@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Drunk Sex = Rape ? (was Re: Mysogynist Bullshit)
Date: 23 Jan 93 22:52:44 GMT
Reply-To: pepke@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Organization: Florida State University, but I don't speak for them

In article <1993Jan22.180334.25273@news.cs.indiana.edu> alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu (amy lynn young-leith) writes:
> I write:
>>Why does this fact make the intent harder to fish out?
>>This is a serious question.  I want to know your reasoning.
>
>These laws were made by a male dominated system.  Yet, these laws have
>been twisted so that it's very easy for a woman to use them unfairly
>against a man. Now why would men make laws that were going to be used
>agsinst them unfairly?

Ah, I see what your assumption is now.  You are taking a view of "men" as a 
social class.

What happens in reality is that rich, powerful men make laws that can be 
used unfairly against middle-class and poor men.  It helps keep them middle-
class and poor which makes them less of a threat.

-EMP
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 15:35:32 CST
From: <U53644@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: "Bitch of the week" awards

And may I have the envelopes, please...........

     For "worst editorial commentary by a nationally syndicated columnist",
the award goes to Ellen Goodman. Ellen wrote a column in which she supported
the presence of gays in the military BECAUSE of the discomfort that showering
with them would cause a lot of straight recruits. She felt that being leered at
in the shower would make them more sensitive about the sexual harassment of
women later on. She wasn't at all bothered by the fact that the women being
"ogled" by men outside of the military aren't obliged to be undressed while
it's going on. Her comments continue a grand tradition started by a certain
feminist speaker who told a man who had recently been assaulted that homosexual
rape was a good thing, because it made men more sensitive about rape. She was
most confused when he suggested that she go rape herself. Of course, I can
imagine no faster way to get someone's sympathy than to advocate that he be
subjected to abuse.


In the "PC or not PC" category, we have Camille Paglia (a local performance
artist here in Chicago, and noted lesbian) who stated that any woman who
dated a man, and was raped by him on a date has nothing to complain about
because danger is what gives sex excitement. Gee, she's for rape, that's not PC
, but she's a lesbian, so it isn't PC to criticise her......what's a Phil
Donohue fan to do ? Needless to say, this kind of talk has a chilling effect on
heterosexual dating in her area.


More awards to come, I'm afraid.


This award ceremony is dedicated to the thousands of 19-year old female
secretaries here on internships who regularly circular file the resumes of
starving job seekers just out of college or grad school, and justify doing this
by saying that if they had studied that much, that they'd expect to go hungry
too. ("Gee, I would assume that I'd either have a small chance at making a lot,
or never get work at all.") Really, we don't mind at all. May we have the
chance to return the favor some day.

                                                     Joseph B. Dunphy

Newsgroups: soc.men
From: jp776@macbeth.umd.edu (Robert S. Rodgers)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism,soc.singles
Subject: Re: The Nice Guy Syndrome (was: Re: Male Men Bashers)
Date: 24 Jan 93 02:26:51 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park

In article <1jstv4INNl7l@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
>
>>That's both a good point and a particularly good way of putting it--I'd
>>suggest that it goes even a little further than that, since most "jerks"
>>never actually go out of circulation; at least the ones I've known
>>generally haven't stopped circulating no matter what their relationship
>>status was--one of the more impressive classic "jerk" type was
>>definitely always actively seeking new conquests, even if he was already
>>engaged to several women at the time and I've known a reasonable number
>>who weren't dissuaded by little details like being married.
>
>Such a good point I thought I'd paraphrase it.  The "nice guys" 
>get happily married and go out of circulation.  The "jerks" are still
>out there dating.
>
>-- 
>
>                                                --  Michal
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Impressive amounts of material can be accreted in this manner.


	Sorry, no.  There aren't *that* many people married under 25, 
	and those that are tend to be the typical HS dropout love-of-
	our-lives-until-the-divorce-two-years-from-now types, not nice
	guys marrying nice girls.


Newsgroups: soc.men,talk.rape
From: "amy lynn young-leith" <alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Drunk Sex = Rape?
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 11:41:40 -0500

In article <C1H4KF.BL3@hplntx.hpl.hp.com> albert@hpl.hp.com (Joseph Albert) writes:
>In article <1993Jan26.104822.15402@news.cs.indiana.edu> "amy lynn young-leith" <alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu> writes:
>>Let's clarify here... Do you agree or disagree with the following:
>>
>>Having sex with someone who consents is not rape. 
>>Having sex with someone who consents and has been drinking is not
>>rape.  
>>Forcing someone who has not been drinking to have sex is rape. 
>>Forcing someone who has been drinking to have sex is rape.
>>Having sex with someone who is unconscious is rape. 
>
>so far, we're in agreement.

I was making statements.  The above just happen to be statements I
would agree with, but I was asking these to clarify what the person I
responded to feels. 

>>A woman, when drinking, renders herself totally incapacitated in the
>>eyes of the law and has no capacity to make decisions that she should
>>then be held responsible for.  
>ah, now we disagree.  and, fortunately, the eyes of the law disagree
>with you as well.  the legal definitions rape are so stringent, that
>what happens in the legal system is that actual rapists are acquitted
>in droves.  this is the price we pay to have stringent laws that don't
>convict innocent people.

I don't agree with that last statement, either.  Following the thread,
I think it would become clear why I asked the above because this
person mostly talked in agreement with the first bunch of questions.  
BUT then he went to say that if a man has sex with a drunk woman, 
he's guilty, to some degree,
of rape or something "less than honorable", and should be legally
punished for it.  To say this is to say that the woman's consent, when
she's drunk, is not legally binding.  This leads to the implication
that a person who is drunk is not bound to their actions.  I'm sure
repeat offenders of DUI would love to hear this.

amy
-- 
alyoung@kiwi.indiana.edu	        	Occupation:  Lifetime Student
*****************************************************************************
*This post was made on personal time and has nothing to do whatsoever with  *
*              the attitudes or opinions of Indiana University.             *
*****************************************************************************
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: bodily autonomy
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 15:36:11 GMT

peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>
>>peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>
>>>I don't see how compelling a NCP to support a child violates his/her
>>>bodily autonomy.
>
>>Would compelling *you* to pay for *my* child violate your bodily autonomy?
>
>>That is, would it be a physical restriction on you if you were given
>>the choice to:  (1) work 40 hours per week and give me 1/4 your salary;
>>or (2) sit in jail?
>
>No.  It is not the same as forcing a person to undergo unwanted surgery.
>It is not the same as forcing a person to remain pregnant against their will.


I didn't ask if it were the same as pregnancy or abortion.

I asked whether it would be a physical restriction on you.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
From: erik@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Erik Lode)
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 19:03:39 GMT
Subject: Re: domestic  violence & the super bowl
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: soc.men

mcole@sub-40 (Mary Cole) writes:

> |To try to stem this tide of violence, the Women's Action Coalition
> (WAC) of Los Angeles is supporting the campaign by Fairness and Accuracy  
> in Reporting (FAIR) to convince NBC (the network carrying the game) to  
> carry two Public Service Announcements on domestic violence during the  
> Super Bowl this year.  Anna Quindlen of the New York Times wrote a fine  
> editorial in the 1/17/93 edition of the Times supporting this effort as  
> well.

  That sounds like a great idea--one announcement showing a man abusing
a woman, and the other showing a woman abusing a man.  (Keeping with
actual proportions, too.)  It would be a good opportunity to open some
people's eyes.

Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.dads-rights
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: adoption rules
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 05:06:50 GMT

peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>
>>peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>>
>>>>A mother +should+ be hindered from placing a child for adoption
>>>>if a father has not been "identified." 
>>>
>>>What about births resulting from rape?  This is really adding insult
>>>to injury!
>
>>If it is so, she should have chosen an abortion.
>
>Mighty big of you, Don, to go around telling rape victims that they
>*should* undergo surgery in addition to the harm that has already 
>been inflicted upon them.

I placed a bet that you'd edit my paragraph right after that sentence!

Thanks, Michal!

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
From: S116943@UMRVMA.umr.edu
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Privacy -- and responsibility
Date: 28 Jan 93 06:54:26 GMT
Organization: Univ of MO - Rolla

------------------------- Original Article -------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Privacy -- and responsibility
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1993 18:16:59 GMT

In article <1j7b3fINN7ve@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>
>>According to your logic, informing a man about an abortion does not
>>restrict the freedom of a woman not to have children.
>
>I agree with that.
>However, it is a violation of the woman's medical privacy.
>
>>As for happiness, it is impossible to be "responsible" if a woman
>>can irresponsibly control a man's life.  And I disagree deeply with
>>you when you say that a woman's decision whether or not to have a baby
>>(and whether or not to tell him) are not controlling and restricting
>>a man's life and freedom.
>
>Only if he "irresponsibly" has intercourse with her.
>
>My whole point, which you consistently ignore, is that neither men
>nor women can have "responsibility free" sex.

A woman can abort after conception occurs, thus achieving a) physical removal
of the fetus, and b) discharge of all child support liabilities. Sounds pretty
damned close to "responsibility free" to me. Why does a man have no equivalent
to choice (b)? What's stopping society from giving him that choice, except of
course the underlying sexist assumption that men should be the bread-winners
and women the nurturers, and some flimsy, invalid rationalizations about what
is economically-efficient, and what isn't...

>The choice to engage
>in intercourse with a partner of the opposite sex carries with it
>certain responsibilities.  The obligation to support any children
>arising from the union is *one* of these responsibilities.

>a woman can discharge that obligation at will, during several months of the
>pregnancy. Why can't a man do the same?

>Period.

>Missing period.

Because women have rights and men have responsibilities.
From: kamchar@ibm.cl.msu.edu (SunCat)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Decline and Fall of the West
Keywords: society sucks
Date: 26 Jan 93 01:57:39 GMT
Organization: Michigan State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: isnext15.cl.msu.edu

Special thanks to drieux, just drieux and his quippy wisdom for starting  
this thread.  Me, I think that society sucks and doesn't give a damn about  
individuals let a man or woman step out of his/her "traditional" role and  
he/she will be mercilessly punished even if that person is doing a great  
job.  

And here's the nettle:  I think that reactionary men's rights advocates  
and men-bashing "feminists" are equal fools.  The anti-feminist right hate  
men and is a movement to limit the lives of men.
We may have just to cooperate with people different than ourselves for  
mutual benefit.

=========SunCat++++     | kamchar@ibm.cl.msu.edu
"The best way to secure liberty is to exercise it."
--John Perry Barlow
Newsgroups: soc.men,talk.rape
From: albert@hpl.hp.com (Joseph Albert)
Subject: Re: Drunk Sex = Rape?
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 18:26:37 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories -- Database Research Group

In article <1993Jan26.104822.15402@news.cs.indiana.edu> "amy lynn young-leith" <alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu> writes:

>Let's clarify here... Do you agree or disagree with the following:
>
>Having sex with someone who consents is not rape. 
>Having sex with someone who consents and has been drinking is not
>rape.  
>Forcing someone who has not been drinking to have sex is rape. 
>Forcing someone who has been drinking to have sex is rape.
>Having sex with someone who is unconscious is rape. 

so far, we're in agreement.

>A woman, when drinking, renders herself totally incapacitated in the
>eyes of the law and has no capacity to make decisions that she should
>then be held responsible for.  

ah, now we disagree.  and, fortunately, the eyes of the law disagree
with you as well.  the legal definitions rape are so stringent, that
what happens in the legal system is that actual rapists are acquitted
in droves.  this is the price we pay to have stringent laws that don't
convict innocent people.

Joseph Albert
albert@hplabs.hp.com
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism,alt.dads-rights
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Michal - Who should protect your rights?
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 18:59:43 GMT

grey@bnr.ca (Grey) writes:
>In article <C1826A.2np@cs.psu.edu>, beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>> 
>> >I would dearly love to have such public records more easily available.
>> >A national computerized database of birth and death records would be a 
>> >good start. I don't see that this would violate privacy since such 
>> >records are already public -- but it would greatly improve access
>> >and simplify record-keeping.  Comments anyone?
>> 
>> A common misconception is that making "public" records more available
>> does not decrease privacy.  Many things that are public remain so
>> by virtue of the difficulty of retrieval -- the price of a house,
>> the age and number of people in your household, etc.  Nobody objected
>> (strongly) to their being public since the easy counterargument was,
>> "It's too hard to get that info, anyway."  You really have to re-evaluate
>> all sorts of "public" records before you broadcast them.
>> 
>> And imagine the resulting junk mail.  I find more serious problems with
>> the concept of making any "public" information easily accessible,
>> but I suggest you look at comp.risks/alt.privacy if you're interested
>> in discussing it.
>
>These are serious problems with the concept of accessibility of information.
>Before going to the trouble of trying to address whether this sort of
>information can be made available in a reasonable and secure manner, 

I'm not interested in discussing that here -- consult comp.risks.
It is a monumental problem, IMO, and at the moment it is as infeasible
as 100.00000000% reliable and available birth control for both sexes.

>... do
>you agree that improved access satisfies your right to knowledge of your
>child, or would you argue that the father must be explicitly notified? If
>the latter is the case, there's no point in pursuing the privacy issue further?

IMO, the father must be explicitly notified (or a very reasonable attempt
made, by a reasonably diligent agent).  "Improved access" would have to be 
so extremely easy that it would be infeasible.  For example, the 
"improved access" would have to include a way for a father to request
(at no cost) automatic daily apprisals of his paternity.  Otherwise,
how can one say a 24-hour waiting period for abortion is a "burden"?

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Xref: sparky soc.men:23239 alt.dads-rights:3498