HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: Re: Reproductive Technologies... (was: Re: Father Notification...)
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 02:25:23 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

Miriam Nadel:
|>| Any statistics on the subject are skewed by self-fulfilling prophecy.  While
|>| 78% of men who seek sole custody get it (and 82% of women who seek sole
|>| custody succees) this doesn't answer the question of what people want and
|>| who would have gotten custody in an actual dispute.

gf:
| >It strikes me as kind of odd that men are pessimistic about
| >their likelihood of success when the batting average of their
| >kind of person is .780.

Don Beaver:
| Stipulating for a moment that these stats are accurate...
| 
| A simple explanation is that the men who actually seek custody
| are a small subset who have a good chance of getting it
| (eg., provably violent/drug-abusing/negligent/etc mother).
| 
| The men who face equally qualified women will avoid trying, because
| the playing field is clearly tilted.  This would make a lot of people
| think that these men don't *want* custody.  So the general split
| becomes 82-18 instead of 51-49.

No -- we don't know what the split is; we don't have that
figure.  All we know is that when a person of either sex
seeks sole custody, they have about four chances in five 
of getting it.  This implies, to me, that sole custody is
most often sought in situations where it is a foregone
conclusion, or at least very likely, regardless of the
sex of the seeker.

But what we would be looking for would be evidence that
men who have an approximately even chance of winning
custody are discouraged from trying to do so.  Now, Karl 
has positively assured us not only that there are such 
men, but that they exist in sufficient numbers to be a 
prominent social problem -- to the extent that men, in
general, are angry about it. I'd like him to tell us how
he comes by this knowledge, since its acquisition seems
mystical in nature.  I want to give our favorite skeptic
something to work on.
-- 

 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Xref: sparky soc.men:22377 alt.abortion.inequity:6335 alt.feminism:6921
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Privacy -- and Waiting Periods for Men (Male Choice Revisited)
Date: 8 Jan 1993 07:52:42 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

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

><1i7uatINN7ph@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>
>>><1i4ul0INNjf6@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:

>You would like to enforce a two-year waiting period for men to
>get married.  (Or even to have sex again, but this would undoubtedly
>trigger a moral outcry from you, against those "repeat offenders.")

I don't know where you got the idea that I am in favor of a waiting period
for men to get married.  For the record, I am not.

>Otherwise, how can a man be sure that a child of his has not been born 
>and that a paternity suit is not in process?

What does this have to do with his subsequent marriage?  I know of no 
prohibition against defendants in court becoming married.  (In fact, the
media seems to delight in stories along the lines of "jaibird weds -- bride
kissed through bars".)

>Certainly, we must allow nine months for the pregnancy, a year
>for the woman to consider her choice about the paternity suit
>(and solidify the custody decision in her favor) -- or even
>just for notification (she is a burdened single parent, after all);
>plus the usual 90-day period for service of legal documents.

>>And if the child is born then the father *is* obliged to support. Regardless
>>of what he feels/wants/can afford.

>What about what his wife/children feel/want/can afford -- when he gets
>married a year after the condom broke and then the "victimized woman"
>decides to sue for paternity?

As I recall, the vow is "for better or worse".  There isn't (usually) 
any clause excepting child support for previously-conceived children.
-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: tjbryce@unix.amherst.edu (THOMAS JAMES BRYCE)
Subject: national coalition of free men - join
Organization: Amherst College
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 08:02:26 GMT


Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
From: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Subject: Re: Mysogynist Bullshit
Originator: hillyard@tiger.msc.cornell.edu
Reply-To: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell-Materials-Science-Center
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 08:09:05 GMT

From article <michael.726477571@glia>, by michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael):
[...]
> 
> How about ignore her or ask her to stop?  I don't think firing is
> necessary.
> 
> I can see it now.  She just won't stop advising me.  Its been going on
> for weeks.  I finally just gave up and just do what she says (yeah right).
> *laugh*

Yeah, living with a nag.  Its so much fun.  I don't know anybody who's
blown up or capatulated when faced with the problem.

> 
>     Michael Stanley (michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu)

SEH
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Double standards (Was Re: Living in a State of Siege)
Date: 4 Jan 93 12:39:27 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

| gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
| >               ...  As I said, in the first place, and
| >could repeat ad nauseam but won't, it hasn't been shown
| >that male longevity is reduced by social factors, much
| >less what those factors might exactly be.  

gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
| Tell me Gordon, do you ever question feminists who claim that 
| women can be as good as men in profession X?  (E.g. doing math.)
| ...
| If you care so much about *hard* proofs, then why don't
| you ask everybody to supply such proofs?

I might question a feminist, or anyone else, who said that
social factors accounted entirely for the difference in
physical strength capacity between men and women.  I would
tend to accept the feminist idea that women are about as
good as men in computer programming because that's what I've
observed in the world.  I would suspect that math lies
somewhat closer to computer programming than to raw physical
output, but I could be wrong.

I'm not asking for proof, by the way, just a demonstration
that social factors probably account for the shorter 
lifespan of the average male.  Maybe they do.  If, for
instance, we found that the patriarchal model of dominance
and control tended to decrease lifespan, which is what the
talk of "working oneself to death" is all about, then not
only would we have something to work with, but we'd have
a feminist critique of our social organization to help
us along.

But my guess is that this avenue of approach won't serve
your purposes, and we won't hear about it any more.
-- 

 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Xref: sparky soc.men:22431 soc.women:22380 alt.feminism:6961
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Reproductive Technologies... (was: Re: Father Notification...)
Date: 8 Jan 1993 23:45:30 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

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

>>nadel@attatash.aero.org (Miriam Nadel) writes:
>>| 78% of men who seek sole custody get it (and 82% of women who seek sole
>>| custody succees) 

>Stipulating for a moment that these stats are accurate...

>A simple explanation is that the men who actually seek custody
>are a small subset who have a good chance of getting it
>(eg., provably violent/drug-abusing/negligent/etc mother).

>The men who face equally qualified women will avoid trying, because
>the playing field is clearly tilted.  This would make a lot of people
>think that these men don't *want* custody.  So the general split
>becomes 82-18 instead of 51-49.

>In other words, the "game" is so unfair that only the supermen will play 
>-- making it look like any man could win, if he just had the desire.

Another simple explanation is that the courts aren't as unbalanced as
some people have claimed.  Without further information it is impossible 
to draw a conclusion.

-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Mysogynist Bullshit
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: na 
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 20:04:01 GMT

In <1993Jan5.203200.5056@ll.mit.edu> x73rl@ll.mit.edu ( Rick LaFave) writes:

>In article; <726215828@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit);

>|And I say that women get top priority, and feminists claim that
>|women should get even more on a regular basis. 

>Geez...  I wish I could get more, on a regular basis!
> 
>Sorry... couldn't resist!  ;-)

Good shot, Rick, glad I'm not the only one around here :-)

REB

Newsgroups: soc.men
From: choffman@adobe.com (Charles Hoffman)
Subject: Re: Levi Strauss DEFUNDS Boy Scouts
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:52:17 GMT

In article <PHR.92Dec31162638@napa.telebit.com> phr@telebit.com (Paul Rubin) writes:
>In article <1992Dec31.222147.25836@adobe.com> choffman@adobe.com (Charles Hoffman) writes:
>
>   Most of the front line leadership of the BSA could care less what
>   orientation, or theistic beliefs a boy has.  We are in the business
>   of guiding boys into becoming moral and stable men.  If a boy's
>   family would like to subsitute "strong, stated and practiced
>   philosophic beliefs" for "relgious beliefs" than I would gladly
>   remove the phrase "Duty to God" and its ilk from the various BSA
>   oaths and replace that with something more applicable.  
>
>Can you do this without getting in trouble with BSA? 

The statement was that I would gladly change the phrasing, not that I have.

>I remember
>seeing on TV some family losing a lawsuit against BSA because BSA
>refused to let their kid join because he would not perform the oath
>saying he believed in God (because, for him, that would be lying in an
>oath).  People's attitude seemed to be that the kid should just take
>the damn oath so he could join the scouts--after all that's what
>everyone else does.  Some way to make moral men, by making them swear
>a dishonest oath before they can even join.  I wonder whether
>Weinberger, Macfarlane, Ollie North, and all those other people who
>lied under oath in the name of morality got their start as boy scouts.

Please avoid silly strawman arguments.  BSA leaders take their principles
very seriously.  We teach the boys not only what the oaths, promise, laws,
and so forth are; but we also expect the boys to understand them and to live
by them.  The BSA won the lawsuit you mentioned, because its purpose has 
always been morals and personal growth as the goal, with camping, fun and games
as a tool.  The family in question wanted the fun without accepting the 
underlieing principles.  I may disagree with some of the specifics, but as I
stated in my original post, the good that is done far outweighs the bad.  I
continue to work to change the BSA from within, but that means that I work
according to the BSA bylaws.

Please take any follow-ups to rec.scouting as suggested by Stan Krieger.
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: child support again
Date: 12 Jan 93 21:31:00 GMT
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <31557@nntp_server.ems.cdc.com> mstemper@ems.cdc.com writes:
>If the cost of raising a child doesn't go up, why should support?

	Why, to pay for the horses, of course.
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
From: buxton@whitewater.chem.wisc.edu (buxton)
Subject: Re: A few facts about circumcision
Organization: Physical Sciences Lab, UW-Madison
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 23:26:55 GMT

I am convinced that circumcision is a needless procedure, and I will not  
expect any sons that I may have to undergo it without their consent, but  
my question is this:  For those of us who "can't go back"; what are we  
missing out on?  (besides the obvious tissue and nerve endings)
Xref: sparky soc.men:22508 alt.abortion.inequity:6383 alt.feminism:7023
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited
Date: 11 Jan 1993 05:37:55 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>Your startement about the ease of finding out non-general information
>is, quite simply, wrong. If you claim different, demonstrate how easy it
>is by finding the record of my birth. You have about as much information
>as the prospective father might have. BTW, my last name is rather uncommon,
>which should help, imagine if the name was Smith.

Perhaps you'd like to provide me with a bit more of the information that
your putative father might have had.  Your mother's name, her whereabouts 
9 months before your birth, and the one date that we know for sure that 
he had contact with her.  Also her place of residence, where she
went to school, where she worked.  Her hangouts, her hobbies, and the
the full names and addresses of her parents or a half-dozen of her best
friends.  (Unless, of course, your mother was into one-night stands.  
In that case the name of the bar in which your father might have met 
her will have to suffice.)

-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
From: julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas)
Subject: Re: "Reverse" Discrimination (was Re: Mysogynist Bullshit)
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 15:02:16 GMT

In article <C0Iwru.nI@cs.mcgill.ca> chuckies@cs.mcgill.ca (Charles J. Savoie) writes:
>In article <1993Jan7.162425.10223@llyene.jpl.nasa.gov> julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan7.020139.3171@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>
>>>My point is that the very way we describe this horrible crime is biased
>>>and sexist, and it colors our perceptions.
>>>[...]
>
>>Look, women have been discriminated against by men in the past.  If women
>>now start discriminating against men, then isn't that a "reverse?"  It
>>doesn't make it any less disgusting and horrible.  
>
>I'll bite on playing a semantic game.  People, unfortunately, think
>in words.  If you change what words they use and what people feel
>when they think those words, you can change opinions, thus votes,
>thus the world.
>
>It's not a reverse, it's a reversal.  It's also a "backlash", but that
>word has a (IMO incorrect) negative connotation now that it describes
>mainly actions of anti-feminist men.  "Backlash" would be a perfectly
>acceptable term for reverse discrimination, according to you, right?
>Since it's an *accurate* term.
>
>But we don't use "backlash", because "reverse discrimination" can
>conjure up two useful images.
>
>1) Somewhere in the average person's head is a pattern of synapses which
>   equates: SEXISM = BAD.  Put "reverse" in front of it and you get:
>   		reverse(SEXISM) = reverse(BAD)
>				= GOOD
[....]
>
>I agree with all this.  But I had to make the point that semantics
>are important.  From webster:
>
>Word: semantics
>se-man-tics \si-'mant-iks\ n pl but sing or pl in constr
>3b: the language used (as in advertising or political propaganda) to
>                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>     achieve a desired effect on an audience
>               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Whoa! Spooky... This is just what I was saying.

I guess I see the second part of the term, discrimination, and react
to that more than anything else.  

Julie
DISCLAIMER:  All opinions here belong to my cat and no one else
Xref: sparky soc.men:22423 alt.feminism:6953
From: michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Mysogynist Bullshit
Date: 8 Jan 93 21:38:15 GMT
Organization: University of Washington
NNTP-Posting-Host: glia.biostr.washington.edu

In <1993Jan8.080905.5595@msc.cornell.edu> hillyard@msc.cornell.edu writes:

>From article <michael.726477571@glia>, by michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael):
>[...]
>> 
>> How about ignore her or ask her to stop?  I don't think firing is
>> necessary.
>> 
>> I can see it now.  She just won't stop advising me.  Its been going on
>> for weeks.  I finally just gave up and just do what she says (yeah right).
>> *laugh*

>Yeah, living with a nag.  Its so much fun.  I don't know anybody who's
>blown up or capatulated when faced with the problem.

Was this a point?  If so, I don't see how it changes anything I said
and I still stand by it.

    Michael Stanley (michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu)
Xref: sparky soc.men:22522 alt.feminism:7035
From: dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Mysogynist Bullshit
Date: 11 Jan 93 14:59:04 GMT
Organization: New Mexico State University

In article <1993Jan11.055947.4937@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <1993Jan9.155357.22287@nmsu.edu> dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan7.213435.29314@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com
>>(Robert Sheaffer) writes: 
>>
>>>
>>>Don't worry. This was one of the "predictions" for 1993 made by one of the
>>>"psychics" in the _National Enquirer_: Bill and Hillary to split!!!
>>>
>>>And since the track record of these "predictions" is essentially zero,
>>>we can be reasonably sure that it WON'T happen. Like that "George
>>>Bush landslide" predicted last year!
>>
>> No we can't Robert.  I don't see how the fact that a psychic predicts
>>something makes it less likely to happen.  
>
>If most of their predictions do not, in fact, happen, then I suspect that
>it would follow. And their hit rate is not anything to brag about. No
>psychic powers needed, reality is far too complex for random guesses to
>work most of the time.

What my point was is that the truth value of a statement much be
determined seperately from the identity of who is saying it.  No
matter how many psychics predicted that the Eagles would not win the
superbowl, they still lost yesterday (sniff)...
 
       (my argument deleted)
>
>It has already been pointed out that this was either a joke or sarcasm.
> 

o.k., whatever...

>
>Rich
>
>payner@netcom.com
-David "ZZYZX" Steinberg- King of the ellipses
       (dsteinbe@emmy.nmsu.edu)
**********************************************************************
*"There's a dog in the station  *"I can't believe I'm a junior and a *
* With a bad reputation         * film major, when all I really      *
* That's a sign of the nation's * wanted in this life was to marry a *
* Decay"                        * lobsterman and cook fish."         *
* -Phish                        * -a letter from Christie Searing    *
**********************************************************************
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,soc.couples,soc.singles
From: sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell)
Subject: Re: How Strong Should a Man Be? and RESPECT!
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 20:32:44 GMT

In article <93005.151253ROPERK@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> K. Roper <ROPERK@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>  Strong enough to carry my purse in public and resist making
>    stupid comments.
>
>  Strong enough to buy feminine hygene products when I ask him,
>    and to ask enough questions to ensure that he buys the
>    right things.
>
>  Strong enough to wear Spandex.  Strong enough to admit that he
>    looks good in tights.
>
>  Strong enough to admit that yes, women sweat, fart and belch.
>
>  Kim

Hmmmmmm.....  Putting all of this together it sounds like your opinon
of how strong a man should be is that he should be strong enough to
be your gopher/errand boy while wearing sexy bottoms for you *chuckle*

No judgements, some people like that *chuckle*

Steve....who knows women sweat, fart, belch and who has gone sheepishly
to the drug store to buy his woman her fashion magazines. *chuckle*


Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
From: julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas)
Subject: Re: Mysogynist Bullshit
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:48:48 GMT

In article <C0GHwp.48w@panix.com> pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich) writes:
>In article <1993Jan6.135027.1400@hemlock.cray.com> acp@cray.com (Anthony Peterson) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan6.185235.21660@llyene.jpl.nasa.gov> julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas) writes:
>>>In article <1993Jan6.163239.28595@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>>In article <1993Jan5.155059.26851@llyene.jpl.nasa.gov> julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas) writes:
>>>>>Until recently, standard medical knowledge was that women were at 
>>>>>extremely low risk for heart attacks and heart disease.  This is now 
>>>>>known to be untrue.  
>>>>
>>>>I think it might me more accurate to say 'this has changed' than to
>>>>say "This is now known to be untrue".
>>>
>>>Well if the first theory was that women were at low risk for heart
>>>disease and the current theory, backed up with much more research,
>>>is that woman are at risk for heart disease, I would say that 
>>>theory #1 is untrue.  To make a comparison that will surely get
>>>me flamed:  we know that the planets orbit the sun.  Do we say
>>>that the earthcentric solar system model is incorrect or "has changed"?
>>
>>	Bad analogy. As for the solar system, the early theory was
>>	never true while the earlier risk factor theory was true at
>>	one time. 
>
>The point is that because of lousy diagnosis and lack of studies
>it is not clear whether the belief that women were at one time at
>very low risk for heart disease had a basis in fact or not. Current
>studies indicate that doctors are not diagnosing (or at least not
>treating) heart ailments as agressively in women as in men. If
>we extrapolate that information to the past, it means that historical
>figures for the incidence of heart disease in women are questionable.

I wish I had said it half as good as this.  This is exactly the
point I was trying to make.  

Julie
DISCLAIMER:  All opinions here belong to my cat and no one else
Xref: sparky soc.men:22166 alt.feminism:6825