HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women,soc.men,soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: Who Is Really Oppressed? (was : Re: Self Appreciation (was: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?))
Followup-To: soc.culture.african.american
Date: 16 Nov 1992 20:54:02 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

In article <1992Nov13.220912.2514@panix.com>
gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>
>My observations of the pre-Civil Rights South were that
>the white people were psychologically worse off than the
>black people; this was consistent with many other observers
>I spoke to at that time, although I don't know of a
>quantified study.

As it happens a large body of research has addressed this question, 
and the indisputable conclusion is that the black population suffers 
from higher rates of total psychopathology and general negative 
well-being.  In fact, the issue is not and never has been whether, or 
even why, but rather what can and should be done to mitigate these 
inevitable consequences of racism.

Of course the general conclusion extends to overall physical health, 
which can be seen at a glance in the Statistical Abstracts: higher 
mortality rates in just about every category, starting at birth with a 
twofold infant mortality rate; shorter average lifespan. 

And the same generally holds for other minority racial/ethnic 
groups, though the details may differ.  The higher psychopathology 
of Native-Americans, for instance, is dominated by alarmingly high 
rates of alcoholism and suicide relative to both blacks and the 
general population.

There's no need to bother examining social or economic structures to 
make the point; the epidemiology speaks for itself.

-S. Schultz
--
Refs (just a few recent random examples):

Neighbors HW. The prevention of psychopathology in African 
Americans: an epidemiologic perspective. 1990. Community Mental 
Health Journal. 26(2):167-79.

Hamberger LK. Hastings JE. 1992. Racial differences on the MCMI in 
an outpatient clinical sample. Journal of Personality Assessment. 
58(1):90-5.

Williams DR. Takeuchi DT. Adair RK. 1992. Marital status and 
psychiatric disorders among blacks and whites. Journal of Health & 
Social Behavior  33(2):140-57. 
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 22:21:59 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.170853.18462@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
> 
>>Was that not the basis for this thread? More to the point is the subject line,
>>"Elle MacPherson causes rape". I do not accept this premise, but it seems
>>that many women do.
>
>Perhaps these 'many women' are who you should be arguing with.  I have
>not seen anyone on this thread support this view.

And perhaps ljf should be arguing with those 'so-called hetero men' who
she feels hate women.

And perhaps the feminists here should just email to the anti-feminists
that they have problems with (and vice-versa), and not post too the net.

And perhaps things should be different than they are.

And perhaps rini should stop telling me who I should be arguing with. Rini
has problems with being told what to post. I bet she has similar problems
being told where to direct her posts. 
 
>rini

I suggest that the women mentioned by the original poster, and
her friends would count as many women. It is not an invented topic.
And your edit job was a bit overzealous. Do the words-context free-
seem familiar?


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.culture.african-american
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: Anacin (was: Re: Are Whites Worse Off in the Deep South?)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 14:27:27 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile
Followup-To: alt.feminism

gf:
| >...even if a slave-owner were relatively less happy
| >than his slaves, it would not make slavery right.

schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz) writes:
| I'm afraid that this particular ethical question is not relevant to your 
| assertion that white people in the Deep South are worse off than black 
| people.

gf:
| >By the way, the follow-up line, at least on the article
| >that arrived here, was set to soc.culture.african-
| >american exclusively.  How come?  Did you think we had
| >wandered away from feminism entirely?

ss:
| I'm not discussing feminism or gender, but rather your assessment that 
| whites are generally, globally, worse off.  Cross-posted again and 
| followups set to soc.culture.african.american (if readers there are not 
| interested in this subject, I'm happy to desist).

If you're going to play rhetorical games, I suggest
you be more accurate about what your opponent -- you do
treat those you discuss things with as opponents -- said
in the first place.  You were attempting to prove than 
women were better off than men because they had better
happiness quotients than men.  One of the things I was
trying to point out was that being in a dominant social 
or political position did not necessarily appear to make
one happier than those dominated.  I alluded briefly to
the pre-Civil Rights South during a specific period of
observation, 1960-1964, and I did not say that blacks
were better off than whites except in a very limited
sense.

You have transformed that to "whites are [presumably in 
the present] generally, globally, worse off."  I've quoted
part of the transformation above, where we fade from the
Deep South to the world in one easy step. 

Now, either you can't read, or you can't think, or you're 
dishonest.  I don't see how the transformation you made
can be a simple mistake, since it consists of more than
one step, and since you cross-posted to another newsgroup
where I suppose you thought the transformed assertion 
might cause trouble.  All in all, it's quite a 
performance, especially considering the laboratory coat
you donned at the beginning -- epidemiological studies 
and all that.  Maybe you should sell patent medicines on
television.
-- 

 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
From: REA105@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Forced PC
Date: 20 Nov 92 19:41:48 GMT
Organization: Penn State University

Admittedly I am new to the network and I have not been reading you writings for
 but maybe two days, but I have been reading some stuff in the world of paper
about PC.  First before I get any farther into this posting let me say that I a
m a blond-haired blue-eyed Saxon.  I am what the physical epitomy(well sort of)
Hitler's breeding idea.  Let me also say that I am a first generation American
and that I one of my grandfather's gave their life for life, liberty, and the p
ursuit of happiness.  My friends and relatives have fought for America in her v
itories(Kuwait) and her defeats(Nam).  I am a child of two worlds.  I know what
 it is to be on the inside and the outside.
     Now on to my topic.  PC.  Maybe this is the wrong net to place this, but I
see forced PC see and forced feminism in the same light.
    One should not force one's ideas on other's.  It is not right to force othe
rs to submit to thine own method of thinking.  It is not PC to make others do a
s you want them to.  It is in that light that I say PC pushers are not PC.  I s
hould not be forced my others to change what I call myself.  I am a man and so
I can be a chairman.  Just as a woman can be a chairwoman.  It is my right to d
ecide what I shall call myself.  It is not your right.  If I want to call mysel
f white, I can call myself white.  If I want to call myself caucasian,  I can d
o so.  Forcing me to call you by want you want to be called in not right though
.  If I can not call you a woman, can a call you a lady.  The word lady used sy
molize respect, now it seems to refer to someone else.  What is it safe to call
 those that have two "X" chromosomes?  If I call someone black.  I am wrong.  I
f I call the a negro.  I am wrong.  If I call the an African-American I am wron
g.  What can I call them  any of them.  Red, or yellow, black, or white.
     I am not saying that PC promoters are bad.  Actually that is what I am doi
ng.  I am promoting the acceptance of people who have a terminology different t
han one's one.  I know a man that has died for us all.  If he could accept us a
t our varo`ious stages of learning, why can we not accept each other?  After al
l are we no all one big family that arose (with divine intervention) out of the
 same primitive soup.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Subject: Re: Sexist and 50/50 (Was: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Originator: hillyard@tiger.msc.cornell.edu
Reply-To: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell-Materials-Science-Center
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 20:03:14 GMT

From article <1992Nov22.212715.1677@midway.uchicago.edu>, by mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini):
[...]
> 
> Most sports also segragate according to age, and professional/amateur status.
> Some segregate by weight (boxing and wrestling).  Some sports have special
> events for wheelchair athletes (basketball, marathons).  Do you think that
> all these distinctions are -isms?  (ageism, weightism, etc.)  Do you think
> that this segregation is unfair?
>
Let me clarify my position.  In college a club sport or intramural league
can put whatever restrictions they want, I don't care.  However, I think
intervarsity sports should be open for all to try out for and should be
made up of the best the college has to offer.

Recreational leagues and various other events, such as the olympics, also
can restrict things however they want.  However, as soon as it becomes a
profession, just like any other profession restricting by race or sex or 
whatever I don't agree with.

> rini
> 
> (BTW, I thought that the pro-BB women's league broke up in 1981... did 
> they get back together?)
> 
A new league started.  I think they play on a smaller court and use a nine
foot basket.  There are also some leagues in Europe.

SEH
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: jay@uuserv.cc.utah.edu (Jay Deuel)
Subject: Re: sex in the good ol' days
Organization: The University of Utah
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 17:26:27 GMT

>
>Not ABSURD enough to question? This "Minister's Wife" writes
>a supposed 19th century piece using 20th-century language and phrases,
>displays the type of man-hatred that only came into existence very
>recently, and doesn't even *mention* "God", or "self-sacrifice,"
>or "duty"!!!!!!! And you people think it's a 19th-century item!

First, when I read this I laughed and thought that sounds like it could of 
been representative of the era.

Second, if I was concerned about the authenticity of the article I would 
have done a little research rather than flame the messenger (who included a 
reference to check).  Why didn't you?

P.S. Is it true: "man-hatred [that] came into existence very recently"?

--Jay
Organization: Doctoral student, Biology, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 20:49:41 -0500 
From: Jessica Halow <jh5b+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Please explain this quote
	<1992Nov19.044458.4235@midway.uchicago.edu>

I've always spelled twerp was with an 'e'.  Rich, you really are a
twerp.  :) :)
--Jessica
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: gregor@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Subject: feminism=sociatal death
Reply-To: gregor@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 08:22:35 GMT


 
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: awinters@hamp.hampshire.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: RE: The problem w/feminism today
Date: 22 Nov 92 17:13:55 GMT
Organization: Hampshire College

well, at least its good to hear a female talking on this group.  but i have
some problems with your problem with feminism today.  first, there is a d
difference between "feminist" and "feminine".  you say that feminist 
writing is exclusive because it leaves no room for masculine identity.
but feminist is an ideology, a way of thinking and living.  feminine is
a social construct, 

also, as far as the integration thing goes, yeah it would be great to
get men involved in a dialogue with this stuff.  all men are not bad
and we're not going to get anywhere withouth their cooperation.

but, as for me, i dont see a hell of a lot of men who even want to 
talk about it.  my experience has been that men are mostly annoyed about
the subject, they kinda roll their eyes like im asking them to take out
the trash or something.  then the next thing i know they're getting
all defensive...before ive even said anything they're calling me a man hater
in so many words.

so i dont know.  i mean,  i dont know.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.folklore.urban
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: MacKinnon Suffers Snuff Harassment (was: Feminists, Radical and Otherwise)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 16:41:15 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.211540.20526@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>
>So if you're intelligent, you automatically assume that there is no
>such thing as a snuff-film?
>
>I've never seen one, but I think they could exist (not saying that any
>do).  And I'll tell you why.  I've talked with child abuse survivors
>who tell of experiences that many people wouldn't want to think were
>true.  They were.  If people can mistreat children so terribly, it's
>not such a stretch to imagine that somewhere there are people who
>would pay to watch women, children, or men fucked and killed.

Some thoughtless person deleted the "alt.folklore.urban" newsgroup
from this thread. We wouldn't want to keep this erudition all
to ourselves, would we?

And some people who call themselves "survivors" of alleged child abuse
also claim to have suffered ritual abuse at the hands of a vast,
underground network of Satanic cults. Does *this* seem believable to
you as well?

-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!

       "Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on this planet.
        Then all things are at risk. It is as when a conflagration has
        broken out in a great city, and no man knows what is safe, or
        where it will end."
                               - Emerson: Essay, "Circles"
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: quilty@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Humberto Humbertoldi)
Subject: Re: Choice?
Keywords: abortion, pornography
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 05:31:17 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.023636.15090@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>jay@uuserv.cc.utah.edu (Jay Deuel) writes:
>
>>As my first posting to this group, I would like to pose the following:
>>
>>	Why do feminists consider a woman's right "to do with her body what 
>>she will" so basic when talking about abortion, yet so forien when the 
>>subject is pornography?  How about prostitution, suicide, drugs, etc.?
>
>This is an interesting question.  
>
>The only time I have seen this sort of juxtaposition before was in
>a tract from Feminists For Life (who argue that abortion is just 
>another form of control of the female body that must be rejected).
>
>I haven't seen it put forth by the pro-choice/pro-porn/pro-prostitution
>camps before, but maybe I'm missing something.

I've seen this connection made a fair amount before.  Gayle Rubin, for
example, is clear about linking these things (though it is only
tangential to her wider pro-sex position).  Annie Sprinkle, whom you
mention in your post, has said this in interview.  I've seen it
"floating around" a fair amount, though more explicit cites are
eluding me right now.  
	BTW, rini, I just LOVE a.sprinkle from interviews I've read,
but haven't seen her or her film(s).  If you feel like talking about
the film any further on this group, I would hang on every word. 
-- 
    _/_/_/_/ THIS MESSAGE WAS BROUGHT TO YOU BY: Postmodern Enterprises _/_/_/ 
   _/_/      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  _/_/ 
  _/_/  The opinions expressed here must be those of my employer...     _/_/ 
 _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ Surely you don't think that *I* believe them!  _/_/ 
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: pointer to article "Online Discrimination"
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 14:40:25 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

There's an article now appearing in soc.feminism which may
be of considerable interest to readers of this newsgroup.
It's titled "online discrimination" and discusses the
possible effects of cultural conditioning about gender on
both employment in the field and on the design of systems
themselves.
-- 

 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: MacKinnon Suffers Snuff Harassment (was: Feminists, Radical and Otherwise)
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 06:38:08 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.053111.27045@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.230409.298@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>
>>In this case, I'll have to side with Rini.  Sheaffer was ridiculing
>>MacKinnon for even *bothering* to research the issue.  Now, it could
>>very well be that the research will be fruitless.  But, then, that's
>>MacKinnon's decision to waste her time.  She may very well be disappointed
>>with the lack of evidence she finds.  I fully expect her to be.  But
>
>No, I was ridiculing the claim that MacKinnon began to be the victim
>of an apparently organized harassment as soon as she dared to investigate
>the dreaded Snuff mafia.

I see no evidence that MacKinnon made this claim.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: sex in the good ol' days
Date: 22 Nov 1992 20:01:43 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

In article <jay.5.722366787@uuserv.cc.utah.edu> jay@uuserv.cc.utah.edu (Jay Deuel) writes:
>> P.S. Is it true: "man-hatred [that] came into existence very recently"?

>Anyone have anything older?  

Lysistrata?

						--  Michal
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Why I Am a Feminist
Date: 18 Nov 92 00:06:01 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Nov17.023449.6700@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>Since this thing has gone around enough times to make anyone dizzy,
>why not just start at the beginning?
>
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>
>>And I said that "Reading posts here gives one the impression that the only
>>things men do deserving consideration is to rape, sexually harrass, have sex 
>>with their children, etc..." 
>
>Okay.  Prove it.  

How does one prove the nature of an "impression". If youre impression
is that my post is stupid (imagine that!), could you prove it to me?`
 
>Be careful this time to show how it is that your evidence supports your
>claim.

What's the point? After the way it was hopelessly mangled last time,
it looks like a lost cause from the get-go.
 
>rini


Rich

payner@netcom.com
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Please explain this quote
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 23:07:44 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.003136.1182@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.000417.13647@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov13.221449.12257@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>>>In article <1992Nov10.015616.4142@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>[redundant attributes gone]
>>>>>>>>>>carol@ee.uts.edu.au (Carol Gibson) writes:
>>>          [men required "forced sex" of wives more often than the reverse]
>>
>>Actually, Carol did not say "forced sex". She is partially quoted below.
>
>Actually, that's why I put it in quotes.  

But putting it in quotes implies quoted material, something she -did- say.
You could have delineated with dashes or commas, the quotes have a very
specific meaning.

>                                       I was looking for a short term that
>would imply one spouse accomodating the other, and used "forced sex".  Simply
>do a global replace of "forced sex" with "one spouse accomodating the other" if
>the term offends you.

Would you think it unreasonable to consider that rape is forced sex? Hey
rini, here is a chance for another childish dig. Go or it! 
 
>[documentation that the words "forced sex" didn't appear in the original gone.]
>
>>>As I understand it, you contend that _equal sex drives_ would imply the same
>>>_frequency of "forced sex"_.
>>
>>This is wrong, I have not made -any- contentions about -forced- sex. After
>>all the text that has gone back and forth, you still misrepresent what
>>I have said.
>-- 
>"TANSTAAFL"     Rich lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu

Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: sex in the good ol' days
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 04:02:42 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.204644.23648@u.washington.edu> twain@milton.u.washington.edu (Barbara Hlavin) writes:
>
>Oh, exactly ... it was very obviously meant to be satirical.  
>
>What's *really* funny about it is Robert Shaeffer's utterly predictable 
>response that it's a Politically Correct Feminist-Lesbian-Man-Hating 
>CONSPIRACY!

     So, Barbara, do you believe that it was written in 1894??????

-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!

       "Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on this planet.
        Then all things are at risk. It is as when a conflagration has
        broken out in a great city, and no man knows what is safe, or
        where it will end."
                               - Emerson: Essay, "Circles"
From: falk@peregrine.Sun.COM (Ed Falk)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: liberal men are a hot item?
Date: 16 Nov 92 22:23:36 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: peregrine

In article <MUFFY.92Nov13084310@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>half-dozen women after them).  Liberal men can be a "hot item" among a
>minority of women, can they not?

My own experience has been the opposite; it's the liberal *women* who are
the hot item (how many lovers did you say you have Muffy?)  When I lived
in NY, I hung out with the rad-fem crowd, and the het. women were *very*
popular.

>They certainly seem to be in my area. 

Can I move to your area?  The majority of the women I've gone out with
have valued me for my ability to make money more than my liberal ways.
The vast majority have wanted to quit work, move in with me and have
me support them.  It gets old real fast.

		-ed falk, sun microsystems
		 sun!falk, falk@sun.com
To be loyal to rags, to shout for rags, to worship rags, to die for rags 
-- that is a loyalty of unreason, it is pure animal (Mark Twain).
Newsgroups: alt.feminism