HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Recent Bill Clinton quote regarding child support
Date: 7 Oct 92 20:35:38 GMT
Organization: BT North America, San Jose CA.

In article <Oct.7.15.04.38.1992.4622@gandalf.rutgers.edu>, shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) writes:
|> So, in the name of men's rights, you are willing to hand this country
|> back to George Bush for another reign of terror?  How frighteningly
|> narrowminded.

There are more than two choices. The media are constantly putting forth the
image that these two (bush/clinton) are our ONLY choices. Not true.

Andre Marou looks better every day.
-- 
d'baba Duane M. Hentrich	baba@Tymnet.Com

We have yet to learn that the thing uttered in words is not therefore affirmed. It must affirm itself, or no forms of logic or of oath can give it evidence. 
The sentence must also contain its own apology for being spoken. - R.W.Emerson
Xref: sparky soc.men:17537 soc.women:17536 misc.kids:25682
From: colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids
Subject: Re: Mattel on women
Summary: Unanswered question
Keywords: Targetting females once again.
Date: 9 Oct 92 17:17:13 GMT
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Oct9.133325.6516@cbnewsd.cb.att.com>, nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci) writes:
> In article <1992Oct9.022704.24521@unixg.ubc.ca> schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz) writes:
> >In article <1992Oct7.173414.18001@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com>
> >bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
> >
> >>Any ideas for nice things a 'Barbie' _could_ actually say about math? 
> 
> Nothing.
> >
> [What Barbie could say:]
> >Math is interesting!
> 
> Why should she lie?  Math is boring and absurd.  :-)  At least
> I though so, and I've done fairly well in life without it thank you.
> 
> >In Barbie Land, math class is just another event to get dressed up 
> >for, after all.
> 
> Hey, what's wrong with shimmery short skirts?  If you've got
> it, be proud of it.  :-)
> 
> -Nance
> -- 

All this debate on what Barbie has to say about Math class.  STill
one question remains unanswered - what does Ken have to say about
all this?

marc colten
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Guilty?
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...
Date: 13 Oct 92 17:36:58 GMT
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <1992Oct12.182715.7285@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
>Therefore, a matter regarding the person of the wife is her business, and 
> her business only.

	Until she sues for child support.  Then it becomes her lawyer's
business, too.

Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism,soc.women
From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Subject: Re: Men's Issues Newsbri (2)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 22:37:19 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.020651.15229@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>Dave Gross writes...
>DG> "Women don't kill men unless they've been pushed to a point of desperation."
>DG>                 -- Dr. Lenore Walker, executive director of the
>DG>          Domestic Violence Institute
>
>Hmmph!  But apparently when men kill women, it is *always* "for control,"
>rather than desperation, right?
>
>Gee, does it sound like she's trying to justify violence?  Except when it's
>by an individual who is double-X-chromosonally-challenged, it would seem,
>though...

Definitely.  Lenore Walker "loves" to testify on behalf of women who
have murdered their husbands.  She loves to paint pictures in court of
these terrible men that were so abusive to their wives that the *only*
recourse this specific woman had was to convince her husband to take
out a large insurance policy, then contract two hit-men to bump him
off - with shotguns.

You see, because of her double-X chromosome problem, she had no other
choice.

As a society, we should be glad that this woman was able to rid
huwomanity of this potential abuser.  We should not condemn her, we
should praise her for the service she has done to womankind.

Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Recent Bill Clinton quote regarding child support
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com
Date: 7 Oct 92 14:36:42 GMT
Organization: Electronic Data Systems, Unigraphics Division, Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: hookr

In article <1992Oct6.180827.8764@Warren.MENTORG.COM>, tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli) writes:
> In article <1992Oct6.020205.10257@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> kolassa@bio1.bst.rochester.edu (John Kolassa) writes:
> 
>>May I remind you that alimony is not the same as child support?  The
>>bluring of the distinction, and the assumption that it's only moms
>>that do or should get custody and the assumption that all deadbeat
>>parents are fathers are two of the things that made my election choice
>>clear.
> 
> Woa!  Just because I confused the two don't take it out on Clinton.  I
> should have been more careful with my wording.
> 
> Clinton has only talked about "child support".  Any national effort to
> enforce payment would be equally applied to both men and women.

  BULLBISCUITS!  Non-custodial mothers are consistantly required to pay 
much less child support than non-custodial fathers. Women are awarded
custody (and the higher child support that goes with it) 93% of the time
where custody is desred by both parents. 1/3 of all such custody battles
involve the use of charges of sexual misconduct aganst the father, and the
latest estimates are that 80% of all such charges are false, yet are acted
upon as if they are true by the court system.  This past record does not
in any way reassure me that any future laws will be equally applied to both men
and women. Quite the contrary, the present trend seems to be to weld
children and women ever more forcefully together, and to constrain the
men to pay for it all from a remote location. 

  Neither Mr. Clinton, nor any other politician expressing draconian
measures and the willfull disregard of Constitutional safeguards in
the name of "protecting the family" gets my vote.

  
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com  "Middle-aged Mutant Ninja Animator" |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|   IF GOD INTENDED FOR US TO VOTE, HE WOULD HAVE GIVEN US CANDIDATES!   |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Newsgroups: soc.men
From: rinesmith@warbrd.enet.dec.com (Roger Rinesmith)
Subject: ********
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 21:57:55 GMT


Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Colorado Springs
Subject: 'The Education of Little Tree'
Keywords: 

For those that have read the book 'The Education of Little Tree'.  What did
you think of it?  I'm taking a class in Social Stratification at the local university and  this book is required reading.  What do you think this book
has to do with Social Statification?
--
-- 
Roger Rinesmith
IM&T Colorado Springs, CO
Internet: Rinesmith@genral.dec.com
uucp: uunet!decwrl!genral!rinesmith
X.400:  C=US; A=MCI; P=Digital; O=Digital; OU=CXO; S=RINESMITH; G=ROGER

Xref: sparky soc.men:17423 alt.child-support:3437 alt.politics.clinton:8848
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.child-support,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Recent Bill Clinton quote regarding child support
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 6 Oct 92 20:00:28 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <1992Oct6.011133.14186@Warren.MENTORG.COM>, tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli) writes:
> In article <1992Oct05.032425.611087@zeus.calpoly.edu> dgross@zeus.calpoly.edu (Dave Gross) writes:
>>"I know how awful it is for a kid to grow up knowing that somewhere out there,
>>there is some father who abandoned her or him.  I just -- it infuriates me.
>>And so, do I think we ought to have a Draconian system of national child
>>support enforcement?  I sure do.  I really believe that.  I do."
>>
>>     -- Bill Clinton, in an interview with Christopher Matthews of
>>        the San Francisco Examiner.  Interview published in Image
>>        magazine, a supplement of the Sunday Examiner, 10/4/92.
> 
> This is a bit out of context.
> 
> He was talking about "deadbeat dads".  He believes in going after them
> to make them pay WHAT THEY HAVE BE REQUIRED TO PAY.  He isn't talking
> about making them pay more, he IS talking about enforcing the rules
> that exist.
> 
> Less than 30% of all alimony is ever actually paid.
> 
> When you are talking about helping children, this is something
> that really needs to be done.
> 

Yep, my co-worker Leona's ex is now SEVEN years in arrears on his child
support.  He makes twice as much as she does.  And she has custody of the
two kids he willingly participated in adopting.

Sue

> Tom
> -- 
> Tom Limoncelli -- tal@warren.mentorg.com (work) -- tal@plts.uucp (play)
> "I like Bill Clinton tremendously.  I know him from the governors' conferences.
> The Democrats nominated their best person, a very able fellow.  The country is
> well served by that choice." -Bush's re-election chair in NJ (Thomas Kean)
From: erik@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Erik Lode)
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 19:47:52 GMT
Subject: Re: Book Rec.: _Bodies: Overcoming the Tyranny of Perfection_
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: soc.men

ewillims@unix1.tcd.ie (Emma Williams) writes:

>> A man who loves to cook?  Mmmmmm.....:)

rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:

>   Why the Mmmmmm? Many (maybe most) men know how to cook, and need
> I remind the net.readers that the overwhelming majority of the world's
> great chefs are all men.

>   The presumption that men as a class don't cook is sexist!

  I think that was an "Mmmmmm" (yummy sound), rather than a "Hmmmmm"
(indication of disbelief).

  Besides--"the overwhelming majority of the world's great chefs are
all men" is also sexist, obviously.  Why, we'll need to have special
AA programs for women so they can spend more time in the kitchen
and--oh, um, well, . . .

	:-)
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: CONDOMS! and AIDS
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 23:18:34 GMT

In article <11068@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu
(Eric Pepke) writes:

>Trojans had roughly a 20-minute half-life.  Sheiks had roughly a 25-minute 
>half life.  
>
>I have since used one Lifestyles Extra-Strength which did not break, and one
>Mentor Magnum, which broke after 3 minutes.

Kimonos have a much longer half-life.

>I view this as an unacceptable level of performance in a consumer item, let
>alone in a supposedly life-saving device.

Definitely.

>Numbers on their effectiveness in the general population are difficult to
>come by.  There are the studies of couples, but of course they do not control
>for whether the condom is actually used or not.  

That's the key problem.

>There are mechanical studies done by condom companies.  I saw a television 
>program on this a while back.  The program was serious.  They had a silly-
>looking reciprocating engine which was supposed to simulate intercourse.  
>They ran the machine for 90 seconds, on the ground that that is supposed to 
>be the average duration of coitus.  The scientist said, with a completely
>striaight face, that the test might be inadequate becuase some people had
>sex for four, maybe five minutes.
>
>I view this test, as well as air- or water-inflation tests, as inadequate.

No kidding.  I'm not so sure about the water-inflation test, though:
they don't check for leakage, but rather (using salt water) for
conductivity.

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Article:  Female prisoners up 560%
Date: 7 Oct 92 22:43:14 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

In article <7560123@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> erik@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Erik Lode) writes:
>Excerpt:
>  Judges have less sentencing latitude than the used to in dealing with
>offenders.  But the effects ripple through the community when women are
>put behind bars because so many women are mothers, the reform group said.
>
>  The study, presented yesterday to the Colorado Criminal Justice
>Commission, says women are being imprisoned for non-violent crimes when
>lesser punishment would do.  Members of the citizens group urged several
>reforms, including a change in sentencing laws to allow low-risk offenders
>to say out of prison.
>
>  Yet the effect on society of having many women in prison is immeasurable
>because more than 80 percent of Colorado's female inmates have children.
>
>  In some cases, relatives care for the children.  But in others, "the
                  ^^^^^^^^^
Like maybe fathers.

>children end up with social services or in foster homes," said Linda
>Lodenkamper of the reform organization.  "So when you talk about the
>impact on women, you're also talking about the greater impact on society."
>
>  Advocates offered several suggestions to keep women out of state
>prisons.  They included using part of Lowry Air Force Base for a pilot
>program to house 30 to 50 female inmates and their children in existing
>dormitories.  The women would be released to work during the day, while
>their children attended Head Start programs on the site.

So why aren't men pushing for more lenient sentences because MANY MEN
who have been convicted have children?  I can't believe that someone
would turn this into a sexist issue - give mothers preferential
treatment in sentencing if they have children - in the best interests of
the children.  What about FATHERS?

If the point here is prison reform and how sentencing drug offenders,
people who commit non-violent crimes, etc. to prison does nothing to
correct the problem, but rather costs all taxpayers dearly, then it
should be gender neutral in approach.  But lobbying for lighter
sentences for women because they are women is total crap.

Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM 
Xref: sparky soc.men:17428 alt.dads-rights:2427 alt.politics.clinton:8871
From: shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.dads-rights,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Recent Bill Clinton quote regarding child support
Date: 7 Oct 92 19:04:39 GMT
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

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

>In article <Oct.7.09.59.47.1992.1945@gandalf.rutgers.edu> shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) writes:
>>kolassa@bio1.bst.rochester.edu (John Kolassa) writes:
>>
>>>In article <1992Oct6.011133.14186@Warren.MENTORG.COM>, tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli) writes:


>It's a pretty straightforward conclusion from his choice of words,
>especially his use of pronouns.  His inconsistent attempts at
>gender-neutrality are about as believable as not inhaling.

So, in the name of men's rights, you are willing to hand this country
back to George Bush for another reign of terror?  How frighteningly
narrowminded.

-- 
Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu) 
Publications Coordinator - User Services
Rutgers University Computing Services
From: wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Recent Bill Clinton quote regarding child support
Date: 8 Oct 92 15:40:43 GMT
Reply-To: wag5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <Oct.7.15.04.38.1992.4622@gandalf.rutgers.edu> shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) writes:
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>
>>In article <Oct.7.09.59.47.1992.1945@gandalf.rutgers.edu> shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) writes:
>>>kolassa@bio1.bst.rochester.edu (John Kolassa) writes:
>>>
>>>>In article <1992Oct6.011133.14186@Warren.MENTORG.COM>, tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli) writes:
>
>
>>It's a pretty straightforward conclusion from his choice of words,
>>especially his use of pronouns.  His inconsistent attempts at
>>gender-neutrality are about as believable as not inhaling.
>
>So, in the name of men's rights, you are willing to hand this country
>back to George Bush for another reign of terror?  How frighteningly
>narrowminded.

	The more it scares pork-barrel congress critter Democrats
and makes the sweating man engaged in the REAL WORLD happy, the
happier I am.

>Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu) 

				John
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,soc.singles
From: keith@orioncmc.ca (Keith de Solla)
Subject: Re: Book Rec.: _Bodies: Overcoming the Tyranny of Perfection_
Reply-To: keith@orion.ic.cmc.ca
Organization: Canadian Microelectronics Corporation
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 21:50:46 GMT

In article <Bvoyz7.BJz@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle) writes:
|> jmd@bear.com (Josh Diamond) writes:
|> 
|> >I always believed that a good breakfast must contain the four food groups: 
|> 
|> >	Caffiene
|> >	Salt/Preservatives
|> >	Fat
|> >	Sugar
|> >	Carbohydrates
|> 
|> And with a diet like this it's no wonder you can't count.
|> 
|> The four food groups are actually Pizza, Chocolate, Ice Cream, & Barbecue.
No,no.  Every Confirmed Bachelor [tm] knows that the 4 basic food groups
are:   steak, beer, microwavable, and ready to eat.   :-)

|> 
|> -- 
|> FUZZY PINK NIVEN'S LAW:  Never Waste Calories.  Potato chips, candy,
|> whipped cream, or hot fudge sundae consumption may involve you, your
|> dietician, your wardrobe, and other factors.  But Fuzzy Pink's Law
|> implies: Don't eat soggy potato chips, or cheap candy, or fake whipped
|> cream, or an inferior hot fudge sundae.
|>                 Larry Niven, NIVEN'S LAWS, N-SPACE
|> -- 
|> 
|> Kiran Wagle                           <kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Keith P. de Solla        |  "Be sure brain is engaged before    |
| CMC                      |   putting mouth in gear"             |
| keith@orion.ic.cmc.ca    |                                      |
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids
From: nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci)
Subject: Re: Mattel on women
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 13:33:25 GMT
Keywords: Targetting females once again.

In article <1992Oct9.022704.24521@unixg.ubc.ca> schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.173414.18001@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com>
>bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
>
>>Any ideas for nice things a 'Barbie' _could_ actually say about math? 

Nothing.
>
[What Barbie could say:]
>Math is interesting!

Why should she lie?  Math is boring and absurd.  :-)  At least
I though so, and I've done fairly well in life without it thank you.

>In Barbie Land, math class is just another event to get dressed up 
>for, after all.

Hey, what's wrong with shimmery short skirts?  If you've got
it, be proud of it.  :-)

-Nance
-- 
Nance Colucci  *^*^*^*^*^*    o__    *^*^*^*^*  |  Work that body!
att!ihlpk!colucci            _.>/               | Stay fit for life.
                            (_) \(_)                           
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: zzz@byron.u.washington.edu (Sample)
Subject: Andre Marou
Reply-To: zzz@byron.u.washington.edu (Sample)
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 23:46:01 GMT

Duane Hentrich writes
> There are more than two choices. The media are constantly putting forth the
> image that these two (bush/clinton) are our ONLY choices. Not true.
> 
> Andre Marou looks better every day.

  Is Marou on the ballot in Washington State?
  Is he on all 50 states?
Xref: sparky soc.men:17408 alt.child-support:3432 alt.politics.clinton:8807
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 08:07:49 EDT
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.child-support,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Recent Bill Clinton quote regarding child support
 <4eq9RB1w165w@bluemoon.rn.com>

In article <4eq9RB1w165w@bluemoon.rn.com>, miller@bluemoon.rn.com (John Miller)
says:
>
>> >
>> > Less than 30% of all alimony is ever actually paid.
>> >
>
>And that's propably 20% more than should be paid.
>
>And as for deadbeat dads, well I can tell you first hand, becausemy dad
>was a "deadbeat" dad.  He got tired of the police being called and his
>baing the automatic suspect.  He got tired of the fact that when he went
>to court and explained that HE was EARNING (through manual labor, not
>education and capital) the money, and that HE should be given custody, the
>court would refuse to listen.
>
>The court system took away all incentive to work by awarding over 50% of
>his take home pay as tax-free income as alimony and child support.  He
>took off to California and loafed on the beach for a number of years.
>
>I really can't say as I blame him.  I think the court system is more to
>blame (along with the stupid laws we have in this respect).
>
>Every time I hear about deadbeat dads, the first thing I think of is:
>Whise stopping the mother from getting a good job?  Especially if she is
>capable.

How about the fact that often marriage involves an implicit contract in
which the husband engages in increased training and schooling raising
his marginal productivity, while the wife either works at a job with
fewer advancement possibilities or takes care of the kids, leaving
a huge hole in her resume?  More and more judges are interpreting
alimony as a bridge intended to allow one partner (not always the female)
to re-train and re-tool to re-enter the labor market.




>As far as I'm concerned, paying for a kid is an important aspect of
>parenting, and if one parent can't pay for the kid, then that should be a
>significant qualifier of that parents ABILITY to raise the kid.  Taking
>away the NCP's livelyhood, motivation to work, and perental rights is
>certainly NOT the solution.
>
><flame off>
>
> This is from
>     miller@bluemoon.rn.com
>who doesn't have his (or her) own obnoxious signature yet
Dennis G. Shea, Penn State
<<DISCLAIMER>>
Ain't nobody's bizness but my own. I'll be happy to accept all
the credit for anything I've written.  It's funny, however, how
employers only acknowledge the profitable ideas.
From: kamchar@ibm.cl.msu.edu (SunCat)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Repressed Memories, Ruined Lives
Date: 15 Oct 92 18:41:34 GMT
Organization: Michigan State University

In article <1992Oct15.033758.20465@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert  
Sheaffer) writes:
>         Book Reviews in the San Jose Mercury News, Oct. 11, 1992
>                                    (excerpts)
>         
>                                       Books
>                  The New Age seeks redemption through 'recovery'
>                         REPRESSED MEMORIES, RUINED LIVES
>                              by George Paul Csicery
[...]
Funny, that's what I see in PC Bashers.  Guilty until proven innocent.   
Defence means "denial" and counts as proof of guilt.  A purported evil  
movement that is sweeping the nation.

=========SunCat++++     | kamchar@ibm.cl.msu.edu
"Men should not automatically have to pay for a
child they don't want.  It's the only logical feminist position to take."
-- Karen DeCrow former president of NOW