HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten)
Subject: Re: Male bashing in other newsgroups
Summary: example
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 13:24:28 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.155651.7049@bnr.ca>, yali@bnrca (Yawar Ali) writes:
> 
> 
> In article <1992Sep10.135825.8009@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:
> 
> |> As the person who posted the list in the first place, let me
> |> put it into perspective.
> |> 
> |> 1)  It is a one way thing.  That is what bothers me.  I really feel
> |>     that women make up lists of these things that men (all men 
> |>     supposedly) are guilty of and we are supposed to enjoy a good
> |>     laugh at our expense.  Well Try to turn it around and see how
> |>     much jolly laughter the woman have when we complain.  I
> |>     doubt that very much.
> |>
> 
> You're missing the point: the item you posted is PRECISELY an example
> of women 'turning around' towards men the same kind of sexist and
> misogynistic characterizations that are so prevalent in society,
> the media, and, yes, on soc.men. So it is not a "one way thing".
> Your reaction seems to indicate that you don't find this very amusing.
> 
Not at all.  For example, watch comics on TV.  The women comics made
a career bashing men and telling the world whats wrong with us.  How
the men make people laugh - by bashing men, mostly.  Gee aren't we
stupid, guys.  the days of humor at women ("My wife is so fat that ...)
are very long over.

> Fine. Your arguments against this practice would have more credibility
> if they denounced ALL forms of <substitute-your-favorite-group>-bashing,
> not just put-down humor directed at men by women. 
> 

this is what was posted.  If they had 40 seminars on how stupid black
people are, or Arabs, or Jews or whatever, I'd still be offended to
some extent = but yes this hit home.  They set the argument, I just
responded to it.


marc colten

Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
From: kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall)
Subject: Re: K-Mark Hostages
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 01:48:03 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.224641.14189@u.washington.edu> hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress) writes:
>Janice Kendall writes
>>If men were more capable of dealing with their own emotions and were less
>>dependent emotionally on women - they also might not become 
>>obsessive/possessive and kill women who try to leave them.
>
>  If women didn't treat men like walking cash machines
>  then these violent acts would happen less often.

We often see the world through our personal experiences.

I was thinking of women who were simply trying to leave a relationship.  
They didn't want any money.  

There are also women murdered by men they were never involved with, but
the men became obsessed with them and decided if they couldn't have them,
then no one else could.
   
 Janice Kendall    kendall@adobe.com    ...!{decwrl|sun}!adobe!kendall

		"Creativity overcomes violence."
				John Bradshaw on "Homecoming"
Xref: sparky soc.men:16204 soc.women:16378 misc.legal:17007 alt.child-support:3110 alt.dads-rights:2224 alt.abortion.inequity:3657
From: hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: "As a taxpayer [Bob B. says] screw [Deadbeats]"
Date: 9 Sep 92 23:13:55 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Washington

I wrote:
  "May you be forced to support someone else --
  and may you have no legal recourse to get out of it."

Bob Blackshaw replied:
  "I did, and I wasn't forced either."

Wonderful things (like sex) aren't wonderful
any more if their forced (like rape).

If you weren't forced -- then you don't have a
clue about male slavery and financial gang rape
-- I do.
Xref: sparky soc.men:16087 soc.women:16272 alt.child-support:3085
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: EuStress Has Trouble With Words
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 8 Sep 92 06:31:25 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <1992Sep8.002927.18462@ultb.isc.rit.edu>, kls4344@ritvax.isc.rit.edu (Person in flux) writes:
> In article <1992Sep5.225145.10663@u.washington.edu>, 
> hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress) writes:
> 
>>   The child should be supported by people who ***CHOOSE***
>>   to support him.  
> 
> But what if *no one*, both biological parents included, want to support this
> child?  That's where I cannot understand your viewpoint regarding your
> paternity.   
> 
> What would you do with your son if your son's biological mother was equally
> adamant as you about not supporting him?
> 
> Katie

Oh, EuStress wants to abandon the child to the State.  Unfortunately the 
social system is totally clogged with children who have been dumped on it.
While people are moaning there are few children to adopt (true only with
white babies), lots of other kids are either in group homes, foster homes, 
or state institutions.  In my area, there is a desperate need for foster
homes for teens.  I have a foster son, plus two biological sons.  Would 
love to take in a girl but that is impossible.

Sue
From: ASDXPSC <ASDXPSC@MVS.UCC.OKSTATE.EDU>
Subject: Re: Male bashing in other newsgroups
Organization: Oklahoma State University Computer Center
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 20:18:00 GMT

>
>I completely forgot I had this downloaded to my PC.  My wife likes
>soaps so I download articles from rec.art.tv.soaps for her.  Saw this
>one and thought I should share it.  There's a lot of male bashing going
>
>SEMINARS FOR MEN:
>
>Once again, the female staff will be offering courses to men of all
>marital status.  Please note, the names of some of the courses have
>been changed.  Attendance in at least 10 of the following courses is
>mandatory.
>>
>>>       other bullshit deleted
>>
>
> 1.  Combatting Stupidity
> 2.  You Too Can Do Housework
> 3.  PMS - Learning When to Keep Your Mouth Shut
> 4.  How to Fill an Ice Tray
> 5.  We do not Want Sleazy Underthings for Christmas.  GIVE US MONEY.
>>
>>>       other bullshit deleted
>>
>  -------------------------- end downloaded article----------------
>
     The authors were correct.  This really pissed me off big time.
     I am so very very tired of equality really meaning " you act
     and behave as women think you should".  More and more men
     are forced into the realization that equal rights really means
     " we will have our cake and eat it too".

     As long as I can continue to draw one testosterone tainted
     breath I will not allow myself to be "gender neutered" by
     society.
>
************************** HEALTH AND GOOD LIFE TO YOU *************************

    My opinions are in great abundance, but strictly my own and I am
    certain the University in no way cares to even hear them let alone
    share in them.  STANDARD DISCLAIMERS APPLY.

                                   Preston Carrier
                                   Email address:
                                   ASDXPSC@MVS.UCC.OKSTATE.EDU
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood)
Subject: Re: Remote (Taxpayer) Wallets
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 10 Sep 92 09:01:46 CDT

In article <2463@tymix.Tymnet.COM> baba@samadhi.Tymnet.COM (Duane Hentrich) writes:
>In article <1992Sep9.130637.27486@walter.cray.com> jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood) writes:
>>  "Quality of life" as defined by man haters, pussy whipped men and
>>naive fairness goofs who think that quality of life is determined
>>by the type of car they drive. I pray for you're son that you were
>>only kidding.
>
>Of all the sanctimonious sacks of shit I have read on this board you take
>todays cake. You'll "pray for my son"? Ya know, last week I ended a date
>before we even got to the restaurant because the woman in question decided
>I need a lecture on how I should have dealt with a family crisis. The reason
>it pissed me off so much was that she didn't even ask about the
>circumstances. She assumed that her experience of child rearing was
>the default and that what she said applied regardless of the truth of
>the situation. I dropped her off. Good bye.
>
>You can take your goddamned unkind assumptions and suck on them until
>senescence sets in.
>
>flame off
>d'baba Duane M. Hentrich	baba@Tymnet.Com
>

Duane wrote:
>
>I can't buy a better car with which to give him more mobility without helping 
>my quality of life. I can't rent a better place for him without renting the 
>same better place for me.
>


Maybe I misunderstood you, but could you define quality of life? A 
better car does nothing to enhance quality of life for my children
as I would define it. Defining my childhood on the basis of material
goods I would have to describe my early years as a failure. I wonder
how the CHILDREN'S DEFENSE FUND defines 'quality of life'? They are
a group who verbally emphasise self reliance, then lobby like a 
S.O.B. for more money from the government and NCPs. I believe in
supporting my children, but not by the governments version as 
defined by the likes of CDF (Single Mothers for a standard of
life like Ozzie and Harriet, without the burden of Ozzie).

First the government takes 30% of my income off the top.
Second, the government (Hennepin County) removes 32% of the remaining
amount. Third, the government requires that I pay for a "Family
health plan" that my children cannot take full advantage of because
they live outside my insurance policy. Fourth, I am required to
carry a life insurance policy and name my children (EX-wife) as
the beneficiary. The remainder of the income goes toward eating,
roof, and personal liability insurance, notwithstanding, additional
goods for my children. As you can probably tell by now Duane, I
hope as hell that Clinton and Hillary pack up their bushel of
government programs and go back to hicksville where they belong.





Xref: sparky soc.men:16363 soc.women:16532 alt.child-support:3159 alt.dads-rights:2252
From: chpetk@gdr.bath.ac.uk (Toby Kelsey)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Date: 13 Sep 92 15:22:28 GMT
Organization: School of Chemistry, University of Bath, UK

susan larsen wrote:
>>>There are practical reasons for a father to have knowledge of his children, 
>>>too.  These children could make claims against the father's estate, for 
>>>example.

I said:
>>My gast is truly flabbered.	[...]

susan responded:

>What I was trying to show, perhaps somewhat ineptly, is that  
>while a mother (out of wedlock, of course) can conceal a child without 
>ramifications, there exist solid, legal concerns involving the 
>rights of the child and involving separate rights of the father wrt 
>the child that are contravened when a woman chooses to conceal her 
>child's paternity.

Sorry, I misinterpreted what you were saying, but I think
there are much better practical/legal reasons for a father to
know his child.

>Sue Larsen
>slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu

Toby
-- 
Toby Kelsey
School of Chemistry,  # JANET: chpetk@uk.ac.bath.gdr, otherwise
University of Bath.   # chpetk%gdr.bath.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.rape,alt.child-support
From: hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress)
Subject: Re: EuStress Has Trouble With Words
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 22:51:45 GMT

Katie writes
>Mr. EuStress, who will support your child if you won't?

   Don't ask me -- I'm not the father.
   They are only "my children" because the
   court says so -- not because I say so.

> I understand your outrage at being . . .ordered to pay 
> child support, but you haven't shown me any alternative 
> for supporting your unwanted child.  Please list for us 
> those "so many better ways to support the child" that 
> you mention so frequently.

   Conception insurance.  If a large group of people
   get together (America) and decide that a child
   (my biological kid) should be financially supported
   then THAT LARGE GROUP THEMSELVES must pay for it.  
   (And they will -- with Aid to Dependant Faimilies.)
   What that large group should NOT do is seek out 
   some poor soul (me), label him the "father" (for 
   "family values") and then proceed to financially 
   gang rape him.

   Katie is a maid -- unless she's forced -- then she's a slave.
   Jeff (me) is a wallet -- unless he's forced -- then he's a slave.

   Wonderful things (like sex) aren't wonderful anymore
   when they're forced (rape).

   Some men, like Bob K., like to pay (some) child support,
   I don't -- I am not a father (wallet)!

   The child should be supported by people who ***CHOOSE***
   to support him.  My biological offspring (who are NOT "my" 
   kids) are supported by two married adult professionals, 
   (Who still make about $70,000/year) three "greater" families
   (who are larger is size and fairly well off), their church 
   (The Mormons -- who have the best welfare system available) 
   and by the community (Provo, Utah -- ranked #1 [last year]
   city in the nation by Money magazine) and by other governments.

   I have a vasectomy and I live in Seattle on $4,000/year.

   Forcing your "family values" on me hurts everyone
   -- especially the children.
From: stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: "As a taxpayer [Bob B. says] screw [Deadbeats]"
Date: 10 Sep 92 01:45:57 GMT
Followup-To: soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity
Distribution: na
Organization: Murasami Labs

Bob Blackshaw wrote:

> ...I imagine I will be supporting her until she
> dies or I do. So what? I married her and made a mistake in
> doing so, but it was my mistake not society's so there is no
> reason for society to foot the bill. Thems the breaks.

My question to you: why hasn't she been footing her own bills??

I certainly would have forced her into the work force a long, 
long time ago.

Builds character.

K'Char
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca (Brad Booth)
Subject: Re: Birth control failures
Originator: bbooth@bcrks6
Reply-To: bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca (Brad Booth)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd, Ottawa
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 22:27:52 GMT


Hillel Gazit writes:
> I quote from Consumer Reports:
> #Motivation may also play a role.  Married women who rely on condoms
> #because they don't want a child under any circumstances have fewer 
> #failures than married women who turn to condoms to delay an otherwise
> #wanted pregnancy.  Researchers say that strong motivation to use condoms 
> #properly could theoretically cut failure rates to 1 or 2 percent.

Yeah, I would have to agree with that. :)

> Anyway, all of that *assumes* that the condoms are of top quality,
> an assumption which is not always true.  From CR:
> #The two condoms in the worst group - LifeStyles Extra Strength with
> #Nonoxynol-9 (a spermicide) and LifeStyles Nude Plus - flunked [the
> #airbrust test], with more than 10 percent projected failures.  In
> #some lots, up to half the tested samples failed.

Condom quality is a big issue.  I tried a LifeStyles product once a few
years back and had 3 break before one finally held up.  I was not too
impressed and went back to the bigger name brands (ie. Trojan, Ramses,
Shiek).  In over a year, I haven't had a single one break. :)

> It's not the break in the condom, it's the man's own stupidity.  If he's
> so worried, let him get a vasectomy.  If he's willing to take the risk
> of condoms, read CR to find out which ones are less likely to break.
> Why should a woman have to go through one of two dangerous procedures
> (abortion and pregnancy) because of a *man's* lie or a "break in condom"?  
>                                          --  Muffy Barkocy 

Actually, I wasn't aware until this was first posted that CR even did an
evaluation of condoms.  It's about time... I'm going to have to get a
copy of it and see how my brand of choice is doing in the rankings. :)
Bi the way, I think that both men and women should read the CR article.
Men are not the only ones that buy condoms, and I would think that 
women (like men) would want to purchase the ones that offer them the
most protection.

Cheers,

    __o     Brad Booth              | "If somebody feels really good
  _`\<,_    Bell-Northern Research  |  about who they are, they don't
 (*)/ (*)   Ottawa, Ontario, Canada |  feel threatened by what other
----------  bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca  |  people are." - Dr. M. Rubenstein
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Remote (Taxpayer) Wallets
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 03:33:43 GMT

In article <1992Sep7.195138.3944@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:

>The money is not coming to the woman for her use, it's to help support
>the child.   ...

The intent of the law is that.  The effect is quite different.
Accountability might help a little.  Some jurisdictions permit 
requiring sufficient child support to raise the +entire+ CP household 
up to the child's pre-divorce level.  That sure includes the woman.

>Well, when men can carry a pregnancy, then we will have total equality. 
>Until then, nature seems to have made it unequal.  Sorry about that,
>no one claimed that life guaranteed fairness.

[sarcasm alert]
Nature didn't proclaim child support.  When men can biologically
grow wallets, then we will have equality.  Until then, Nature seems
to have placed the burden on the woman.  Sorry about that, but no-one
claimed that life guarantees fairness.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
From: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Biological Sex Differences? ("Women only" excusable ?)
Date: 15 Sep 92 21:13:47 GMT
Reply-To: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Organization: Florida State University, but I don't speak for them

In article <92258.200546RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET> RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET writes:
>I think you missed the point which was that there seems to be differences
>which are not easy to explain `culturally'.

It is possible that I misunderstood the way you used the term "decisive 
argument."  If your point is merely that sex has some effect on brain 
development that is greater than zero, I cede the point.  I don't think
that point is particularly controversial, however, and "decisive" is not
a word I would personally choose to describe such an argument.

In any event, the argument does not tell us anything in particular about
the population in general.

-EMP
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support
From: hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress)
Subject: Re: EuStress Has Trouble With Words
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 22:56:15 GMT

Sue wrote:
>I have some serious problems about Mr. EuStress's postings.  Sometimes he
>talks about 'accidently' leaving his sperm in a woman who lied to him about
>her birth control, then he talks about his 'children' (?) living in a 
>$70,000 house.  (BTW, in most places, *MOST* houses cost $70,000, unless it
>is in a really bad neighborhood.  At least it's that way, here in the 
> mid-west where housing is quite affordable.)

  You're confused.

  I wrote $70,000/year.  That's than anual
  income -- not the price of their house.
  I don't know how much their house is worth.
  I would guess it to be around $120,000.
  
  I never said that I "accidently" left my 
  sperm anywhere -- I said that I am not the
  father (except biologically).
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: TXK025@maccvm.corp.mot.com (Eddie Chandler)
Subject: General
Organization: Motorola
Date: 9 Sep 1992 07:47:51 CDT

Due to SYS-ADM censorship, I am unable to browse ANY of the alt.
groups - which (of course) means that I am missing one hell of a lot
of banter.

Does anyone, therefore, know of a UK phone number that I could use to
dial into the INTERNET and access these wonderful groups?

If any of you can help, please e-mail me or leave a message on soc.bi

Thanks in anticipation.
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: EuStress Has Trouble With Words
Date: 9 Sep 92 03:27:19 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

# Have you ever heard about adoption?
# 
# Do you know what the length of adoption waiting lists for
# newborn babies?
# 
# (I suggest "choice for men" long before the baby will be born so
# the woman will have the choice of abortion or the time to look
# for the kind of adoption (e.g. open) she might want.)

In article <1992Sep8.154104.19454@yang.earlham.edu> 
joeo@yang.earlham.edu writes:
>	The length of adoption waiting lists for WHITE babies.  That is an 
>important distinction because in the U.S. the majority of aborted babies 
>and unwanted babies are black.

Quite a few white couples prefer to adopt a black baby now and not
to wait a couple of years in a waiting list.  They can't do that 
because black organizations object to cross-race adoption.
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: EuStress Has Trouble With Words
Date: 8 Sep 92 03:21:15 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: The Piranha Club

In article <1992Sep8.002652.15573@smds.com> rh@ishmael.UUCP 
(Richard Harter) writes:
>In article <1992Sep7.094652.3937@desire.wright.edu> 
>sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:

>someone yells foul, one has to look at particulars.  My point was that
>a system where rulings are made without ascertaining the situation is
>unjust, even if it produces a fair result by chance.

What make think that a spoiled girl like Sue will ever
give a damn about that?
Xref: sparky soc.men:16012 soc.women:16206 alt.child-support:3054
From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.rape,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: EuStress Has Trouble With Words
Date: 5 Sep 92 16:12:45 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:

> Katie, I think EuStress has told us that his ex- wants him out of the
> picture completely.  She doesn't want to see or hear from him - ever
> again.  

Not exactly. 'Euie' wants out and she's agreed. EuStress has posted this
many times, citing everything from After A Divorce, Dad Needs To Get 
Lost To Preserve The Well Being Of The Kids -to - I Hate The System So
I'm Not Going To Play. Depending on the point he strives for, the reason
seems to change from post to post.

> She has a new Mr. Right, and new Mr. Right seems perfectly able
> to support Euie's child(ren).   However, I think when ex- and new Mr.
> Right found out that they could use the state to force Euie to pay for
> children, while at the same time get the state to terminate his
> visitation rights to his children, they opted to go that route, rather
> than have new Mr. Right adopt the children.  They opted to financially
> rape Euie.

Quantum Leap there, Aaron. In the same light as people object (as society)
being 'forced' to support someone's child, forcing a spouse to become the
responsible party is just as wrong. We've had many discussions here in 
a.c-s regarding the wrongness of the system tapping the resources of the
new spouse for child support. To arbitrarily say that in this case, it's
ok, seems a little far-fetched.

> The state will not allow him to voluntarily sever his ties with his
> children and wants him to pay child support for children (or a child)
> that he will not see.

...wants him to pay child support for the children he refuses to see.

> Often, new husbands want to adopt the children of previous marriages and
> support them as their own.  Often, women work quite hard to support
> their children and ask no quarter from the fathers of those children -
> maybe because they know that some men just can't cope with all that life
> offers, and have a tough enough time just taking care of themselves.

Often, maybe. But not in this case. EuStress has posted a few times that
new hubby chooses not to adopt. We shouldn't call him names because of
that choice --that'd be The Bad Thing (tm). Just as it'd be a bitch to
have a new spouse adopt in the face of NCP objections, it's an equal
bitch to say s/he should.

---
Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA