HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Back Again To (Un)Father - NOT!
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 19:45:23 GMT

In article <1i519hINNk29@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>
>>peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes...
>>>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>>Would it be equally OK to for man to make such decisions for women?
>
>>>What equivalent decisions would that be?
>
>>Ah, for instance - The woman doesn't want to raise the child, but the man
>>does.  Is she forced to support a child whom she doesn't want?
>
>If the child is born, then indeed she is!  There *are* cases that have
>mandated a woman to pay child support to a custodial father.

And there are cases of meteorites actually hitting people. My understanding
is that they happen about as often. Is this a telling point? Would you
write a letter to your congresscritter demanding meteorite collision
insurance?
 

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


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 18:32:37 GMT

In article <168C1CB92.SURGDM@mizzou1.missouri.edu> Diane writes:
(in response to Dave Gross)

)Are you seeing a trend here? If there's a problem with violence, it looks
)suspiciously like a male-problem that women are supposed to just put up with,
)because we may not make up the largest segment of victims. But unfortunately,
)women are victims, and primarily victims of men. If there is a problem with
)male violence, maybe you can start doing something about it instead of just
)running your mouth about how terrible it is. You seem to be angry that women
)would dare to usurp whatever fear you claim to be living with. Deal with it.
)We have dealt with it, are dealing with it, and we're sick of it. You're
)going to have to get your sympathy from somewhere else.
) 
)Diane
)If you're not part of the cure, you're part of the problem. [ ]

You seem to be missing the point.  There is a 'problem' with 'male violence'
only when that violence is not socially approved.  When the violence 
*is* socially approved (soldiers & police, for example), 'male violence' is
not only approved, but expected.  And, in the case of the draft, not
only expected, but *required* by law (though a currently inactive law,
fortunately.)

I find it rather unfortunate that you express no empathy for men's problems,
(in fact, you tell 'men' to look somewhere else) and instead post the same
old rhetoric about solutions.  You yourself, however, offer none - at least
not in this post.  This is aside from the problems inherent in responding to
a 'feeling' statement with a 'solution' statement.

If you actually have a solution for violence and crime, I'd sure like to hear
about it.

You seem to me to be angry about violence and crime (which I can understand),
but seem to be more interested in pointing the 'finger of blame' than finding
a solution, though you talk about 'finding a solution'.  (Why do I say finger
of blame?  Consider:  Does it really matter if you are the victim of a crime
who the perpetrator was?  Does it matter if he was black or white?  A man or
a woman?  My answer is - probably not, unless you are a bigot.  Reverse the
roles of 'men' and 'black' in your post and see what you get and what you
think of it then, for instance.)

If you are not just finger pointing, the reason for singling 'men' out
escapes me.  It certainly isn't any 'special treatment' we get from the
justice system.  If you look at the statistics (see some of my recent posts
to alt.feminism, or I can E-mail), you will find that men are punished more
harshly for committing crimes, and are much more likely to wind up in prison
compared to women.  If the system is biased, it is already biased against
men.  And adding more sexist bigoted bias against men to the legal system
(more than is already there already) will probably *not* change the rate of
violence one whit, either.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
From: aep@world.std.com (Andrew E Page)
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 14:00:46 GMT

In article <1gth7bINNcfi@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>dgross@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu (Dave Gross) writes:
>
>>	"We men" are surrounded by violence from our circumcision in infancy
>>(no anaesthesia, thank you) to being bullied in elementary school; from trying
>>out for the football team in high school to registering for the draft; from
>>being several times more likely than our sisters to be murdered to watching
>>boxing on television; from visiting Arlington National Cemetery to running our
>>fingers along the Vietnam War Memorial.
>
>[additional examples deleted]
>
>So this gives you the right to do violence unto others???
>
>-- 
>
>                                                --  Michal
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Of course there's no reason!  

   100%, completely off of the MARK!!

   The issue is not the right to comit violence at all!   The issue is that
men are also the victims of violence.
-- 
Andrew E. Page   (Warrior Poet) |   Decision and Effort The Archer and Arrow
Mac Consultant                  |     The difference between what we are
Macintosh and DSP Technology    |           and what we want to be.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.dads-rights,soc.men,misc.legal
Subject: Re: False allegations of abuse / Chesler's book...
Date: 21 Dec 1992 14:27 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <BzKF5s.DG2@world.std.com>,
 srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller) writes...
>Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>>I am *not* saying that I
>>would consider it a good idea to censor her book, I *do* believe that we
>>should do *something* about books that instruct people on how to break the
>>law!!.  Also note that this distinction is the reason why I have cross
>>posted to misc.legal.
> 
>It's a good distinction.  For what it's worth, in law school the
>professors (notably Nadine Strossen, president of ACLU) usually
>suggested what they called "counterspeech."  That is, if A writes a
>how-to book on crime, B can write a book deploring how-to books on
>crime and the people that apply A's lessons.  Theoretically, the
>members of an enlightened society see the wisdom of one book over
>the other (whichever they decide is which), and make an informed
>decision about their actions.

This is beginning to sound like the debate over _Final Exit_.

						Daniel Reitman
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: jean@cs.cornell.edu (Jean M. Petrosino)
Subject: Re: Working with Women vs. Working with Men
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 19:04:32 GMT


RSR:			Equality is a delusion.
JMP:				Translation: Suck it up.

RSR:			Translation: Take everything away from everybody
			and put them all in the same environment.  Some
			will succeed, some will sink.  


When in doubt, quote the superiority of capitalism and Darwin's survival of the
 fittest theory.  



RSR:			Come off it.  Should I make the effore to
		"understand" someone elses methods when they wont
		lift a finger to do the same? Hell no.  Women 
		deserveno more slack than anyone else and I think
		it's pretty sexist of you to suggest otherwise.


Wow.  Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...In your earlier post you
said women's thought processes are "crippled in some way, and "makes the work
a lot less effective." You then go on to paralell women with children as well 
as getting to the point of insulting my reading abilities.  And to top it all
off you get right down to calling me and other women pathetic simply because 
we choose not to operate as you do.   Do you really believe that asking you to
try to see a situation from another point of view is sexism? 
What planet are you on?
  

Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
X-To: MICHAL LEAH PERI
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 20:08:00 GMT

peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes...
>dgross@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu (Dave Gross) writes:
>>       "We men" are surrounded by violence from our circumcision in infancy
>>(no anaesthesia, thank you) to being bullied in elementary school; from trying
>>out for the football team in high school to registering for the draft; from
>>being several times more likely than our sisters to be murdered to watching
>>boxing on television; from visiting Arlington National Cemetery to running our
>>fingers along the Vietnam War Memorial.

>[additional examples deleted]

>So this gives you the right to do violence unto others???


Why ever did you read this into what he said, Michal?

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Gravity: It's more than just a fragrance.  It's the LAW!"
   - Will Steeves, President, GOiDS "R" We, Inc.

 * SLMR 2.1a * aibohphobia, n. The fear of palindromes.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: news@mont.cs.missouri.edu
Subject: Re: Back Again To (Un)Father - NOT!
Organization: University of Missouri
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 11:32:08 CST

In article <1992Dec30.151008.16056@ll.mit.edu>
x73rl@ll.mit.edu ( Rick LaFave) writes:
 
> 2) If you believe that women are underpaid and/or underemployed (WRT men),
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>then odds are the actual $$ amout that she would pay him is less than
>the actual $$ he would pay her, if she had instead exercised her choice
>to raise the child herself, and sought support from him.  (Support is
>generally a specific fraction of gross income).
 
 
Your first line is completely gratuitous. Regardless of anyone's beliefs
concerning women's employment status, the parent who makes the most money
pays the most support. Say that a man and a woman make 40K/ year and 20K/year
respectively. Their combined income is 60K. The court will decide that
,under normal circumstances, the support of a child requires a certain %
of that income- let's say 10%, or $6000 a year, or about $500 a month. The
man is making 2/3s of the combined income, so his 'share' of the support
is also 2/3s, or ~$335.00. The woman is responsible for the remaining 1/3.
If the woman supplies a higher share of the combined income than the man,
she is responsible for the greater share of the child support.
 
Diane
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:6534 soc.men:21800 soc.women:21908
From: bl275@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dan Diaz)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Due Date for Paglia's Sexual Personae II ?
Date: 4 Jan 1993 00:24:40 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bl275@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dan Diaz)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


I reading Paglia's 'Sex Art and American Culture' I noticed that she
mentions having completed both volumes of 'Sexual Personae' in the early
80's.  Given the success of both of her books, does anyone know when the
second volume of SP is due?
-- 
Dizzy Dan         ddiaz@cwru.bitnet      bl275@cleveland.freenet.edu
Department of Molecular Genetics - Albert Einstein College of Medicine
"My opinions are my own, and they should be yours as well"
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:6322 soc.men:21550 soc.women:21733
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: The White Feather Campaign
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:14:02 GMT

DPIROT@vm.ucs.UAlberta.CA writes:

>Several 'womens groups' have been reported in the media as
>expressing outrage at the media reports of systematized rape camps
>in Bosnia, and are demanding military intervention in Bosnia to
>bring and end to the practice.

>It is likely, judging from the lack of confirming evidence and from
>the opinions of aid workers in Bosnia that the reports are greatly
>exaggerated, that the stories have been made up in order to stir up
>sympathy for a Balkan war. 

Hmm.  I don't know.  They had a thing about this on NBC Nightly
News last night.  They had a soldier who described in detail how
he raped ten women and killed six of them; how the Serbs run
'bordellos' filled with the female prisoners.  Both the rapes and
the murders, he claims, were committed 'under orders.' They also 
interviewed a young woman who was pregnant from being held captive 
in one of these 'bordellos'.  Didn't strike me as particularly 
ficticious.

>However, even if there were some truth to the allegations, what
>seems to be happening is that the feminists are prepared to
>sacrifice the lives of young American men in order to protect the
>virtue of women. This seems to me to be a major step backward.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Exsqueeze me?  Are you saying that rape somehow takes away the 
victim's virtue?  I hardly think that that's what is making 
people upset.  ("Gotta stop that raping!  Their making a bunch of
whores out there!")

But anyway, what do you think *is* a valid reason for going to
war?  Saving some oil wells?   

rini
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,misc.misc
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: violence
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 15:51:59 GMT
Followup-To: alt.feminism

Rini writes: (quoting some unpublished research - just the tail end of a
long post)

> 
> "The differential treatment of women offenders does not appear to be 
> simply an issue of 'better or worse' treatment compared to men's. ...
> It seems that women are sanctioned more severely for some offenses,
> and men for others."

I do find it easy to believe that chivalry and paternalism have a flip
side in some of the areas you mention (such as competency hearings)
which negatively affects women.

I still feel that it's generally the same paternalistic/chivalric attitudes
which tend to fuel much of the 'violence against women' movement, though -
(IMO).

I have not totally reconciled all the conflicts I feel about this issue.
One one hand, I think things really would be better if everyone treated the
issue in a gender neutral manner.  On the other hand, given the reality of
the political process as it exists today, I feel that men conforming to
gender steroetypes and remaining silent about violence and how it affects
them ('taking it like a man') and women complaining about it and painting it
as a gender issue creates a false impression of the issues, and I think it
really does hurt men as a group by making it less likely that their needs in
this area will be addressed.
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:6420 soc.men:21673 soc.women:21824
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Date: 22 Dec 92 13:12:01
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: x73rl@ll.mit.edu's message of 22 Dec 92 15:55:36 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.155536.13131@ll.mit.edu> x73rl@ll.mit.edu ( Rick LaFave) writes:
>Since Feminism is about womens issues, not mens issues, feminists 
>concentrate on womens lives/issues

Yup.

>and are indifferent (at best) to mens
>lives/issues.

This is an assumption of yours, and of the anti-feminists.  It is not
inherent in feminism.  *Some* feminists are not interested in men's
lives.  *Some* feminists are; some of those include it as part of their
definition of feminism, others see it as a separate issue which they
are, nonetheless, concerned with.  Finally, a small number of feminists
actually hate men, for whatever reason.  However, this is not actually
part of feminism, as you imply, it is a personal issue of theirs.

>Nobody bats an eye...  No big surprise here...

Oh, come off it!  More than half the posters to this group scream about
this every day.  Even more on soc.men and soc.women.

>Men who discuss mens issues without the footnote 'women have it much 
>worse', or who interject that males also have a perspective on a particular
>problem that women haven't considered (see para 1), are insensitive to 
>womens issues/needs/whatever and are belittleing womens lives.

Nope.  Men who say "shut up about (for example) violence against women,
because the *real* problem is violence against men" are being
insensitive and belittling.  Men who discuss men's issues in a group
which is supposedly about feminism (which you yourself say is about
women's issues) are also being insensitive, since the implication is
that people who are concerned about women's issues *should* be spending
their time on men's issues.  Why not keep it in soc.men and stop all
this ridiculous cross-posting?

>BTW who did we say is being insensitive?

Well, try a mirror.

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                      | ~Can you tell me how much bleeding/it
muffy@mica.berkeley.edu            |  takes to fill a word with meaning and/
"amorous inclinations"? Aha! I'm   |  how much how much death it takes/to give
not "not straight," I'm *inclined*.|  a slogan breath?~ - Bruce Cockburn
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Why are many low-income women fat? (was Re: Separate but Equal?)
Date: 22 Dec 92 22:42:21 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <BzoCsr.Lw@news.cso.uiuc.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>
>>>In article <BzML6w.Hxw@news.cso.uiuc.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
> 
>>>>I understand from sci.math that appearance
>>>>discrimination against women *is* an issue. This newsgroup carried a
>>>>posting from a male mathematician. He was *extremely* upset, because,
>>>>in his role of evaluating job applications, he had received a
>>>>letter from a colleague, asking him to take on the "mission" of
>>>>finding out whether a female mathematician was cute or not!
>
>>Was this for a job interview or job related? Or because someone was
>>interested in meeting someone else?
>
>This was made very clear in the posting. The colleague did want
>him to find this out, so they could decide whether or not to hire her
>on this basis. 

Opps, you're right, it does say that. One of the hazards of attempting
to write in a multiple-interrupt situation (at work), I occasionally
loose track of what I was writing, or occasionally miss things.

Thanx for the correction.
 
>>Rich
>>payner@netcom.com
>
>Lenore Levine
>levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu


Rich

payner@netcom.com
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Men & Women, "Males & Females"
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 17:44:15 GMT

In article <1h0carINN1k9@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
)sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell) writes:
)
)>I've noticed that many men ( sometimes myself ) get very annoyed by
)>women/feminists referring to them excluisively as "males".

)I doubt that most people intend either term as an insult.
)

Yeah, I mostly agree.  It's still irritating, though (IMO).

Xref: sparky alt.feminism:6497 rec.autos:30428
From: dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Date: 23 Dec 1992 19:22:49 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: redondo.sw.stratus.com

In article <1992Dec23.180040.9600@midway.uchicago.edu>, mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:
> 
> rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes:
> 
> >Now whether you, or muffy, or NOW, or Senator Biden makes violence against
> >women "your issue" is beside the point.  I agree (if that is the point
> >you are making) that it doesn't mean that that you think that violence
> >against men is unimportant.  But if "your issue" is the only one that
> >society perceives, that says something, don't you think?
> 
> I don't think society ignores other kinds of violence.  When I watch
> the local news at night, the first ten minutes is usually all about
> male on male violence.  It's true; no one uses the code words "Violence
> against men," but I would say the issue gets lots of media attention.
> By contrast, maybe once every couple of weeks, they mention "Violence
> agaisnt women" (always in a story about domestic abuse).  

I guess this just goes to show what spin our preconceptions put on things
that we see and hear.  I agree about the proportion of the two kinds of
violence.  What I disagree with is your interpretation.  When you see three
stories about various violent crimes committed (a homicide, an armed robbery
and a simple assault), it's just violent crime, regardless of the fact that
it's usually a man on the receiving end.  When a woman is the victim of a
violent crime, it merits special treatment (coverage, *not* solving the
problem).  One can just as easily claim that this spin is because people
are brought up to believe that doing violence to a woman is more reprehensible
than doing it to a man.

[deleted]

> rini

-- 

#include <std_disclaimer.h>

Dan S.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine)
Subject: Re: Boycotts (was Re: Why are many low-income women fat?)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 17:05:36 GMT


rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:


>	Have *you* read it?  It simply lends more evidence to my point,
>	not yours.

What point? That (stranger) rape is mostly about sex, not power? She 
specifically quotes the Chicago police as saying the opposite.

I think I would like to finish this correspondence, as it is
unfortunately time consuming (I have to write a thesis).

May I suggest you check out misc.writing? If you develop your
writing skills, you will be in a much better position to 
fend off unfair treatment in liberal arts classes.

Lenore Levine
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:6491 soc.men:21751 soc.women:21875
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Date: 23 Dec 92 18:00:40 GMT
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations


rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes:

>Now whether you, or muffy, or NOW, or Senator Biden makes violence against
>women "your issue" is beside the point.  I agree (if that is the point
>you are making) that it doesn't mean that that you think that violence
>against men is unimportant.  But if "your issue" is the only one that
>society perceives, that says something, don't you think?

I don't think society ignores other kinds of violence.  When I watch
the local news at night, the first ten minutes is usually all about
male on male violence.  It's true; no one uses the code words "Violence
against men," but I would say the issue gets lots of media attention.
By contrast, maybe once every couple of weeks, they mention "Violence
agaisnt women" (always in a story about domestic abuse).  

I guess what I'm saying here, is when we talk about "violence" in general,
we are *usually* talking about male violence.  

Basically, what we have here, I'm beginning to think, is another 
manifestation of the whole problem where "generic human" equals "man".
If you don't know the gender, it's "he", you know.  The sign on the
men's bathroom door is the totally *ungendered* gingerbread "boy" 
cut-out.  And "violence", with no modifiers, is generally about men.
"Men" is usually the default value.  

It's funny.  The Chicago Tribune has a section called "Woman News."
I guess that's the stuff that isn't really relevant to the generic
news (men's?) section.  Hmm. 

rini
Newsgroups: alt.feminism