HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: Re: Back Again To (Un)Father
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 18:42:24 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile
Keywords: Two Legs Good, Three Legs Bad...

gf:
| GF> As things stand now, the fetus cannot continue its life
|     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| GF> without using its mother's body.  I believe the mother
|     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| GF> has the right to withdraw that access, and the state has
|     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| GF> no right to interfere.  Once the fetus becomes a child
| GF> by being born, anyone can support it; it has emerged
| GF> into the human community.  Questions of its support have
| GF> become social, rather than (immediately) biological....

Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
| As things stand now, given the hysterical fervour of the WarOnDeadBeatDads, it
| is being made out as though a born child cannot continue "its" life without the
| father's wallet, the more unwilling the father, the greater the need, or so it
| seems to most cynics...
| 
| I take it that you'll realise my sarcasm, but the point remains that I also
| believe that the father should have the right to "withdraw that access".  I
| cannot see why the mother cannot chose to not have the child, seeing that she
| will have difficulties raising him/her by herself, rather than choosing (as
| she currently can) to force the father, kicking and screaming, into an unwanted
| child's life.  I needn't belabour the point of how an unwanted child is very
| often resented by the unwilling parent(s).

I've come up with a general solution -- in fact, two of
them -- which would get unwilling fathers off the hook.
They are (1) to communize (or if you prefer, socialize)
child support; and (2) to use the method used by (I
believe) the Navahos, who allocate certain communal
resources to mothers with children (in the case of the
Navahos, arable land).

I don't have the bandwidth to read this group as
thoroughly as I would like, but I have seen _no_
solutions offered by the, um, unfathers' movement.
(Or by anyone else, actually; as I said, the question
doesn't seem to interest any of you.  At 53, I can
count on some of you to keep the economy going so I
can get my social security and dividend checks as I
hobble around twenty or thirty years hence; but for
_you_, there will evidently be no next generation.
Good luck!)


-- 

 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Reproductive Technologies... (was: Re: Father Notification...)
X-To: J H WOODYATT
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 04:29:00 GMT

bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes...
JHW> goid@zooid.guild.org (Will Steeves) writes:
JHW> | Hmmm...I wondered about that, myself.  But do realise also, that it is
JHW> | the position of many feminist groups that pregnancy is women's
JHW> | "biological prison".

JHW> Well then, I suppose you could name three or four of them then,
JHW> couldn't you Mr. Steeves?  I am unaware of any `feminist'
JHW> organizations that hold such a position.


If you *must* demand references, I can go through my books on reproductive
technologies and dig some up for you.  In the meantime, I suggest some readings
by Gena Corea, Simone De Beauvoir and I believe also Helene Deutsch.  While the
words "biological prison" are admittedly my own, you will often see references
to the philosophy that equality can only be reached when "women are freed from
the oppression of childbirth" (again, my own quotes, but the sentiments are
similar).

Again, if you wish for specific references, just ask.  It'll be no tribble at
all...  :-)

---
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 * "Hey Rocky, watch me pull a tagline out of my hat!"
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Reproductive Technolo
X-To: MICHAL LEAH PERI
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 04:32:00 GMT

peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes...
MLP> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
MLP> >the "biological prison" of nine months of pregnancy.

MLP> It's not pregnancy that's the prison.  It's being forced to
MLP> stay pregnant against one's will.


Actually, not entirely... See my reply to J.H. Woodyatt.  Many writers (perhaps
J.H. is right - I may have erred in assuming that any "feminist" organisations
have necessarily co-opted their beliefs from the feminist writers whom I
mentioned) are on record as saying that true equality will only be gained when
women become independent from being the gender responsible for childbirth.

---
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 * REALITY.SYS not found, now using VIRTUAL REALITY DRIVER.
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:5853 talk.abortion:51803 soc.men:21080
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,soc.men
Subject: Re: Miscarriage Grief == Abortion Grief (was: abortion)
Date: 12 Dec 1992 19:23:40 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:

>Ah, but would you grant the same amount of passionate defense to a man
>who has just lost a wanted child by abortion?

Of course someone who lost a wanted child would grieve.  So, of course
would someone who lost a wanted foetus, whether by spontaneous miscarriage
or by his partner's abortion.

>Indeed, *I* have received a lot of insensitive comments, like "You can always
>have another" or "Go find a woman who wants one," or even "Go hang around
>outside a Catholic girls' school" (!)

It's a shame that people are so cruel.

>And yes, I *was* thinking of putting a wreath at the Women's College Hospital
>exactly a year afterward (and every year), but after telling the "mother" of
>my intentions, received the response "If you did that, I'd never forgive you,"

It sounds like your partner is in a state of denial about the death 
involved in the abortion.  Perhaps you could do your grieving without
involving her?

>spoken in much the same tone as the time when she said "If you do (ie., go
>public), you're a dead man".

This is perfectly understandable, given the stigma associated with 
abortion in our society.  If you "went public" you might well jeapordize
her job, her family relationships, her friendships, her standing in 
the community.  I do not wish to discuss whether or not you have a right
to do so.  But I would hope that you would consider the ramifications
that your "going public" might have on her life.

						--  Michal
>---
>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 * Jesse Jackson: the EDLIN of political candidates.
-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,soc.men
From: kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l)
Subject: Re: Miscarriage Grief == Abortion Grief (was: abortion)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 04:22:44 GMT

peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:

>Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:

>>And yes, I *was* thinking of putting a wreath at the Women's College Hospital
>>exactly a year afterward (and every year), but after telling the "mother" of
>>my intentions, received the response "If you did that, I'd never forgive you,"

>It sounds like your partner is in a state of denial about the death 
>involved in the abortion.  Perhaps you could do your grieving without
>involving her?

>>spoken in much the same tone as the time when she said "If you do (ie., go
>>public), you're a dead man".

>This is perfectly understandable, given the stigma associated with 
>abortion in our society.  If you "went public" you might well jeapordize
>her job, her family relationships, her friendships, her standing in 
>the community.  I do not wish to discuss whether or not you have a right
>to do so.  But I would hope that you would consider the ramifications
>that your "going public" might have on her life.

Isn't it a pity that no one need consider the ramifications an abortion
might have on the prospective father?  But he's not part of the problem,
is he?  This is solely between a woman and her doctor.  Privacy issue,
you know.  The man can just go wait outside, or get in the car and drive
away, because it isn't "his" child she's aborting.  At least that's what
they keep telling us.  It's not a child at all, Michal, so why would 
anyone grieve?  That's what they keep telling us.  Ignore the bodies
in the trash can out back.  They're not really human.  That's what they
keep telling us.  

Steve Kellmeyer

>						--  Michal
>>---
>>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 * Jesse Jackson: the EDLIN of political candidates.
>-- 

>                                                --  Michal
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Of course there's no reason!  
-- 

Steve Kellmeyer 
kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:5890 soc.men:21129 soc.women:21438 talk.abortion:51882 alt.feminism:5988
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Reproductive Technologies... (was: Re: Father Notification...)
Date: 14 Dec 1992 01:03:37 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

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

>"Tender years" did not come from an expectation that *mothers* had an
>obligation to support their children.  It came from an expectation that 
>they were the only people qualified to >mother< their children.  That, in
>and of itself, is a sexist viewpoint unsupported by any hard evidence.

>It also came with an expectation that >fathers< were the only ones
>qualified to *support* (read: pay for) the rearing of children, and since
>the woman was the only one qualified to >mother< the child, the man got to
>support her in the bargain -- like it or not.

>The way this was and is effectuated is to provide, under penalty of law,
>transfer payments from >men< to >women< purportedly for the children's
>benefit.  

Not quite!  It provided a for men to support their children.  Now, in the
case of seperation between mother and father, a sexist assumption that the
mother was more qualified to hold custody gave her the kids and gave the 
father the obligation to support those kids.  Thus it effected a transfer
of money from the father to the children.  it also effected a transfer
of care (time, effort, nurturance) from the mother to the children.

>However, as there is no accounting requirement by the recipient of
>those funds, as to just where and on what they were spent

I agree that this is a shortfall of the current system and should be changed.

>would conclude that the funds were really transferred for the benefit of the 
>>mother<, not the child.
>This, of course, is because "tender years" has nothing to do with support in
>the financial sense by women.  It, and the current sexist implementation of
>child custody has everything to do with granting a form of alimony under a
>different name.

Since you claim that child support is merely "alimony under a different 
name", how do you explain that it is only granted when there are children???

-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men,misc.legal
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: Re: Back Again To (Un)Father
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 15:41:38 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile
Keywords: Two Legs Good, Three Legs Bad...

gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
| >... At 53, I can
| >count on some of you to keep the economy going so I
| >can get my social security and dividend checks as I
| >hobble around twenty or thirty years hence; but for
| >_you_, there will evidently be no next generation.
| >Good luck!)

peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
| It's not a dearth of procreation that's bugging this
| group.  It's a reluctance to pay for their progeny.

Procreation -- as I'm sure you're aware -- requires that
the progeny be supported and educated through a long period
of helplessness.  Without that support, that education, 
if they survive at all they will simply be an army of
barbarians within the gates.  The economy will not work for
a population consisting of ignorant, hateful savages.

However, it's quite possible that this procreation will not
take place even in the sense of giving birth.  The birth
rate of Americans is already too low to replace the popula-
tion.  If it were not for immigration, the population of
the United States would be shrinking.  In a world of total
individualism -- as I have pointed out before -- a woman
has to be crazy to give birth, unless she's so well off or
so poor it doesn't matter what happens to her economically.
With a kid dragging her back, she can never keep up in the
rat race!

Do you all think that simple fact isn't going to have an
effect on your lives?
-- 

 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:5945 talk.abortion:52142 soc.men:21269 alt.dads-rights:2974
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Unfounded Allegations Of Sexism
Date: 16 Dec 92 21:16:42 GMT
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less

A few months ago, I wrote:
|  Something.  Anything.  Shit or get off the pot, son.  Either decide
|  you're a Real Man and you can take a little criticism, or get used to
|  the fact that you're a snivelling little weasel whose only purpose in
|  life is to keep the Little Woman from ever having to do anything but
|  look after the children.

...in response to a poster complaining that an Emma Goldman quote on a
coffee mug in his workplace constituted sexual harassment, and further
had the gall to complain that this was a clear example of feminist
hypocrisy on the issue of sexual harassment.  It appears that the
quote is achieving a life of its own as it circulates among the
readers of Gawd only knows what newsgroups.

Why this is in talk.abortion I have no clue.

Now, alanf@cs.monash.edu.au (Alan Grant Finlay) responds with:
# The "real men" in our society are the ones who are not touched by
# legislation, they murder women that refuse to behave as their
# property.  They don't care if going to jail destroys their family.
# The trouble with family law legislation is that it can only threaten
# those who have feelings and care about their families.  Such people
# can be reasoned with and law should only be used as a last resort.
# The current legislative approach is doomed to create more problems
# than it solves in my opinion.

Would someone please explain to me what Mr. Finlay is driving at here?
And if it has nothing at all to do with abortion rights, I suppose
this should be taken off talk.abortion.


-- 
+---------------------------+  ``I guess the government that robs its
| J H Woodyatt              |  own people earns the future it is
| bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com |  preparing for itself.''
+---------------------------+                             -- Mark Twain
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:5915 alt.dads-rights:2953 alt.feminism:6065 alt.missing-kids:819 alt.politics.homosexuality:7990 alt.politics.sex:480 soc.women:21480 soc.men:21184 talk.abortion:52021 talk.rape:2925
From: Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,alt.dads-rights,alt.feminism,alt.missing-kids,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.politics.sex,soc.women,soc.men,talk.abortion,talk.rape
Subject: Re: Proposal for reorganization of gender-issue groups
Date: 15 Dec 92 14:57:21 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu (Eric Forbis ) writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.201041.608057@zeus.calpoly.edu> dgross@zeus.calpoly.edu (Dave Gross) writes:

>>	soc.manumission (moderated)
>>
>>	Analogous to soc.feminism, this would be a moderated group for
>>posting news and thoughtful analysis of men's issues.  Followups
>>regularly set to soc.men, alt.dads-rights or soc.feminism.d.  I forsee this
>>group as one of fairly low traffic.

Uh, why "manumission", as analogous to feminism?  Is the idea
that feminism is associated with liberation really that accepted
nowadays?

>>	soc.men
>>
>>	Posters would encourage a man-friendly atmosphere and refer
>>debates and flames and acrimonious discussion of feminism to
>>soc.feminism.d or alt.flame.

>And this is the only change I disagree with. Feminism directly impacts men
>today, and usually in a negative manner.

Hee hee.  Quite a peculiar viewpoint; but to each their own.

>Criticizing feminism (radical,
>academic, whatever) is thus an integral function of the men's movement,
>and telling men to take their criticisms of an ideology that vilifies them
>to that enemy's camp.... ugh, simply unconscionable.

I would have thought the men's movement would be more interested in
doing positive things, than simply reacting negatively to other
viewpoints.  Certainly the masculists I know don't see their agenda
as conflicting with that of feminists (except the radical masculists,
who I assume are as representative as radical feminists).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk      Computing Lab, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Discord, the Goddess of the Net, was developing a taste for blood sacrifice.
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:5981 soc.men:21322 soc.women:21583 talk.abortion:52240 alt.feminism:6179
From: bouche2@server.uwindsor.ca (BOUCHER DAVID            )
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: The evil comspiracy lurking behind this "men's choice" thing...Oh GOiD!
Keywords: Now On Sale At Newsstands Everywhere....THE ULTIMATE TRUTH!
Date: 17 Dec 1992 18:31:14 GMT
Followup-To: alt.abortion.inequity
Organization: University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada

>bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes...

> Not until there is a live birth do either of you become parents.  The
> way to avoid becoming a parent, is to simply prevent live birth.

If a man were to punch a pregnant woman in the stomach, and as a 
consequence she miscarried, would he not be charged with murder?  Is
there anyone who thinks he should bet let off with simple assault?

How about if he doesn't hit her at all, but rather just slips a couple
of RU-186 pills into her coffee?  If she suffers no ill effects (other
than miscarriage), can or should he be charged with any crime?  Would 
(or should) the law treat such an act any differently than, say, putting
pork into Kosher hot dogs (some years back, several members of the KKK were
caught doing that at a meat-packing plant where they worked).

Suppose in the second case, the woman sued the man for the loss of the fetus?
Could he argue that the fetus is just a collection of cells, and as such, is
worth no more than a lock of hair or some fingernail clippings?  If the
fetus does have some intrinsic value, does that value belong exclusively to
the woman who carried it, or does some portion of it also belong to the
father... or, does the fetus ultimately only have value to itself?

Finally, in any of the above cases, would it make any difference if the man
in question were the father-to-be of the destroyed fetus? 

- db

Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men,misc.legal
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Fetal Protectionism
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 19:32:50 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.185802.966@advtech.uswest.com> steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:
>> = (Don Beaver) writes:
>>> = ( Steve Novak) writes:
>>>> = (Don Beaver) writes:

>>I also refuse to accept a legal system that affords women the power
>>to decide *legal parenthood* without providing men an equal right.
>
>That's not what we're arguing, and I get sick of seeing it dragged into
>abortion debates.  It's a legitimate issue, just not germane in t.a.

I don't read t.a., and the only reason my articles ever get there
are because someone x-posts to a.a.i.

>>If you consider this "forced birth" or "fetus worship," I suggest
>>we have a radically different outlook on life.
>
>You might not be an anti-abortionist extremist, but at least for
>third-term abortions (almost always done to save a woman's life or
>health), you are not only advocating forced-birth, you are indeed
>"worshipping" the fetus at the further expense of a woman in the most
>dire need of an abortion.

The simple fact that you respond in this way makes it clear that 
you are a "pro-choice" extremist, IMO.  And you prefer straw men
and insults to substance.

>>What I have found most telling about posters who call themselves
>>"pro-choice" is that they move quicker than a knee-jerk to accuse
>>anybody not touting the "pro-choice" slogans of being a "pro-life 
>>religious-right fetal worshipper," none of which I am.
>
>You may not be religious right; you are a pro-life fetal-worshipper.
>You've just proven it.  Why else would you prefer a fetus over an
>endangered woman?

This is why I avoid t.a. -- such completely extremist and intentionally
baseless statements.  I am not "pro-life" and I do not "worship fetuses."
Now go bait somewhere else.

>Methinks you're pulling the wool over your own eyes.

Methinks you haven't got the wool out of your eyes.
And it's causing you a lot of irritation and inflammation.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,misc.legal