HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Feminist=Equality? Errrr.... Nope.
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 03:46:20 GMT

In article <C1Bpxw.8v8@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> bgarfink@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (beth diane garfinkel) writes:
>In <jay.36.727813864@UUSERV.CC.UTAH.EDU> jay@UUSERV.CC.UTAH.EDU (Jay Deuel) writes:
>
>>>Damn right we're not so het up about false accusations; we want to be
>>>listened to when we make TRUE accusations!!!!!!! Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!
>
>>Funny how a WOMAN isn't too concerned about false accusations, which 
>>means an innocent MAN is procecuted!  This seems like the wrong approach to 
>>getting people to listen to true accusations.  (sounds like a witch hunt)
>
>Look.  I don't want innocent men to be prosecuted for rape. I consider
>that to be a given; perhaps I'm overly idealistic.  However, from my
>personal experience, the laws, their enforcement, and the prevailing
>attitudes of society towards women's testimony are all slanted the other
>way, so as to let men guilty of rape be acquitted and go unpunished.  

Is not one of the foundations of American law, and the concept of protection
from unjust accusations, that it is better to acquit a few of the guilty than
to sentance a few of the innocent? This applies to -all- accused, not just
men accused of rape.

>I might add that some of those laws are stricter than you might think. In
>Massachusetts, for example, in order for it to be rape, the plaintiff
>has to have made any gesture of resistance at all; saying "no" once or
>struggling for one second is enough to qualify. Think about that.  How
>many of you out there are guilty of rape in Massachusetts?
 
You tell us? The plain fact is that -many- laws are stupid. If you say
the wrong thing while defending your home with a gun, you will be accused
of manslaughter (or is it murder) by the state. Your example is one of
many, not an isolated example of sexism.

 								Beth
>-- 
>". . . but if the will to walk is there, He is pleased with their
>stumbles."    		--C.S. Lewis, _The Screwtape Letters_


Rich

payner@netcom.com
From: baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Verbs and gender connotations
Date: 21 Jan 93 23:21:05 GMT
Organization: BT North America, San Jose CA.

In article <1993Jan21.094417.15750@leland.Stanford.EDU>, farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
|> Women don't even need toys to fuck men.  They can use their fingers
|> and/or hands.  Or the legal system.  (Figured I'd throw that in for
|> the anti-feminists in the newsgroup.)

Indeed.

I maintain, however, that the cultural connotation to the active verb 
"to fuck" is masculine.

Isn't that why women lawyers also wear suits (& ties). Active fucking
is a masculine trait, just like the courtroom uniform.

;^)
-- 
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
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.sex.bestiality
From: schwae@marcus.its.rpi.edu (Eric A. Schwartz)
Subject: Re: Bestiality (consent?)
Keywords: bestiality
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 06:10:02 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.150424.14549@hellgate.utah.edu> galt%peruvian.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Greg Alt) writes:
>In article <jay.38.727987223@UUSERV.CC.UTAH.EDU> jay@UUSERV.CC.UTAH.EDU (Jay Deuel) writes:
>>Along the lines of consent, I'm curious what you think of bestiality?  The 
>>Utah State Legislature is considering a bill that would make it illegal, 
>>because an animal can not give consent.  A few questions to consider:
>>
>>	Does the word "rape" apply to non-human sentients?
>
>Sure.  Though I'd say that only humans are capable of committing rape, 
>since other animals aren't capable of paying attention to "NO!".
>
I suppose it could be applied according to the same standards I apply
to furless people.  It is possible for a rape to occur, and for
there to be a rape victim, while there is no rapist guilty of it.
It is largely a matter of individual perceptions.  One partner could
feel abused and think that he or she adequately communicated the
message of "no," while the other honestly did not pick up on the
message.  Among animals, the standard would be a little different,
since "no" might take different forms, or not even exist.  Most
mustelids have very violent matings.  The larger male drags the
female around by the scruff of the neck until she can no longer
resist, then goes at it.  Considering that many weasels form
monogamous pairs, they clearly don't hate each other over that.
So, for a weasel, even what would seem so obvious a sign of "no"
to a human as struggling and biting to get away, would not be
a weasel's sign for no, and while the human being dragged around
may feel raped and abused, the weasel would not have any reason
to interpret that as anything but "come and get it."  So there
is a victim, but no attempt to victimize anyone on the part of
the weasel.  

>>	What if the animal initiates the action; how many people have had to
>>	shake a dog off their leg?
>
>A good example of a consenting animal.  I would say that if the animal
>doesn't seem to mind or is actively enjoying it, then it shouldn't be a
>crime (though I don't think I'd like to associate with people who are into
>things like that).  If, on the other hand, the animal is against the idea
>of it and is being "raped", then normal "cruelty to animals" should apply.
>
Yeah, I don't like people who won't let the dog finish either.  :-)

>I'm not sure of the relevance to feminism here... so I've added 
>alt.sex.bestiality to the newsgroups and followups lines...

There are plenty of female animals in the world.

E.S.
From: zen@death.corp.sun.com (d)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Men doing Male Bashing
Date: 25 Jan 93 11:36:51
Organization: savage hackers
	<1993Jan20.045753.27442@leland.Stanford.EDU>
	<1993Jan20.200450.1252@netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: death.corp.sun.com
In-reply-to: sheaffer@netcom.com's message of Wed, 20 Jan 1993 20:04:50 GMT


In article <1993Jan20.200450.1252@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
> [being white giving advantages]
> What I "deserve" is pretty much "what I pay for", no more and no less.

  If you're a citizen of and living in the US, by living and adhering to
laws (or, at least, not getting caught), you are "paying" for certain
privilages, like equality, freedom of speach, governmental services,
etc.  That's what you deserve, I guess.

> And in our society, there is a continual transfer of income FROM
> taxpayers to recipients of the various welfare programs.

  And a continual transfer of income from 99% of the people to the upper
1%.  That's life in this great country, eh?

> Now, if one group pays all of its own housing expense, PLUS some or all of
> the housing expense of another, then IT is the victim. They get LESS
> from society than they pay in. The group that
> is on the receiving end of this largesse (getting MORE than it pays for)
> is not a victim, but a beneficiary.

  There is more to life than housing expenses.  More to life than even
money.  People pay in different ways, not all of them financial.

> So who is exploted: the one who
> PAYS all the taxes, or the one who lives off the taxpayer?

  Most people are exploited by the government, the large corporations,
and the ultra-rich.  Fortunately in this country they are pretty much
interchangable, so you can see who the enemy is.

 -- d
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: If ljf did not see it then it just does not exist
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 19:50:31 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.034358.7332@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>In article <C1H7qu.7o0@ccu.umanitoba.ca> kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts) writes:
>>I thought someone recently won a Nobel Prize for proving this point.  (That
>>discrimination does cost.)
>
>I'd be interested in hearing more about this.  You have any more info?
>
>Once again, I don't see where discrimination necessarily costs.  Take
>Cracker Barrel, a restaurant chain in the Southeast.  It received
>nation-wide media attention when it fired competent employees simply
>because they were lesbian, gay, or bisexual.  It seemed to have no
>problem in replacing the fired employees.  For every person who
>refuses to eat there because of its anti-lesbigay policy, there appear
>to be two people who are glad of it.

Or they do not care one way or the other.
 
>Where does the actual cost come in?  Are we talking about the cost to
>society when competent employees lose jobs, the abuse of justice when
>people are fired for bigoted reasons?  Or the actual cost to the
>business that does the discrimination?

What about those who lose jobs because of AA, or do not get them because
of AA? Institutionalized discrimination is the -law-. What is the cost
to society of AA?
 
>What is Cracker Barrel's loss?  If it loses no business (for every
>person who boycotts it because of its policy, two more are happy with
>the policy) and it can replace every fired lesbigay employee with an
>equally competent non-lesbigay employee?  There's probably some loss
>in time and performance in replacing the fired employees, but if
>Cracker Barrel screens applicants from the start, then even that loss
>can be avoided.  So, what is to prevent a business from doing exactly
>what Cracker Barrel has done?

What is to prevent a business from hiring only lesbigays? Why do I suspect
that they would not be labeled sexist/whatever, and noone would be asking
about the cost to society?


Rich

payner@netcom.com




Xref: sparky alt.feminism:7627 soc.men:23252
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Moral Standards (Was Re: Men Male Basheres)
Date: 25 Jan 93 18:28:22 GMT
Followup-To: alt.feminism,soc.men
Organization: The Immoral Minority

In article <1993Jan20.050942.28023@leland.Stanford.EDU> 
farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:

>privilege.  I don't hold you responsible for being born white, but I
>do hold you responsible for seeing a racist system and not doing
>anything about it.

Do you apply similar attitude for other cases?

E.g.

1) Iraq invaded Kuwait, and burned all its oil wells.  As a result Mexico's
   profit from oil sales went *up*, and Mexico did nothing to reverse the
   situation in Kuwait.  Do you hold Mexico responsible for what Iraq did
   in Kuwait?

2) Lincoln S&L owners cheated quite a few investors.  Now the assets of
   this (and others) S&L are sold in a fire-sale by the RTC.  Do you hold 
   the people who benefit from the low prices of the S&Ls bankrupt 
   properties responsible for people's loses from S&L mess?

3) The sexist draft of the 60's and early 70's hurt men.  Women benefited
   because they were not drafted.  Do you hold the women who could be
   drafted, if the draft was not sexist, responsible for that sexist
   draft a system?

Hillel                                    gazit@cs.duke.edu

"Fuck this.  I don't subscribe to it and I don't think I should take
the shit for being responsible for it because I was born with a penis."
                        --- Eric Pepke
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: michael@neuron6.jpl.nasa.gov (Michael Rivero)
Subject: Re: Feminist=Equality? Errrr.... Nope.
Organization: JPL Pasadena CA
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 19:10:22 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.034047.1718@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <1jsu77INNlh4@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>roarf@stud.cs.uit.no (Just this guy) writes:
>>
>
>Why is the opposite of 'blame the victim', -the accused must be guilty-?
>Would a rational woman make false accusations of rape?
> 
> 



  Let's put it this way. If a woman makes a false charge, and it is PROVEN
false, the worst that happens is her target has evaded her. Like the woman
in the Nordstrom's case, no charges are filed, and her photo is withheld
from the press, so even her embarressment at being found out is kept to
a limit.

  Now if she makes a false charge and it goes undetected, she stands to
gain publicity, revenge against a lover who left her, legal advantage
over her ex-husband in order to extract huge settlements and to deny
visitiation, book deals, the sabotage of a political opponent (anyone here
remember the Tawana Brawley case?) etc. etc. etc.

 With everything to gain and nothing to lose,  and with the feminist press
cheering them on, OF COURSE women will make false rape charges whenever they
can, rational or otherwise. Remember what Susan Brownmiller used to exhort,
to seize power for women "By Any Means Necessary"?  A false rape charge,
so heinous that it's mere accusation brands the accused forever even if
found not guilty, is that means.


-- 
Michael Rivero michael%neuron6@jpl-mil.jpl.nasa.gov
From: maufd@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Mr J S Graley)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Feminist=Equality? Errrr.... Nope.
Date: 22 Jan 1993 18:16:50 -0000
Organization: Computing Services, University of Warwick, UK
NNTP-Posting-Host: lily.csv.warwick.ac.uk

In article <C17q6x.Eur@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> bgarfink@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (beth diane garfinkel) writes:
|In <1993Jan20.152056.28080@news.uit.no> roarf@stud.cs.uit.no (Just this guy) writes:
|
|>Which means that a man even being invited by a drunk woman to have 
|>sex should think twice. Isn't that common sense? Not _only_ 'cause she
|>can file a rape-complaint, but because she is drunk. 
|
|Besides that, if she's drunk, you do not have any way of knowing where she's 
|been and with whom.
|
|There is a name for this line of reasoning; it is called "being a gentleman."  
|
|A good example of this is from the movie "The Philadelphia Story," when
|Jimmy Stuart explains to Katharine Hepburn why he didn't sleep with her
|the night before: "You were very attractive.  But you were also the
|worse, or the better, for wine, and there are rules about those
|things."
|
|But that movie is is from the 40's; we all know that such sentiments are
|extremely outdated and completely worthless, don't we? [sarcasm off]
|
|Beth

Like sexism?

Pathetic.

~THE GREAT NAME
-- 
    Don't worry,
     Its like in the comic books...
      ITS NOT REAL!
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Subject: Re: Verbs and gender connotations
Date: 22 Jan 93 08:45:38 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <MUFFY.93Jan20192740@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <1jl21rINNlh1@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>> Do other posters agree with the assessment that the verb "to fuck"
>> irrevocably carries masculine gender?  Is it impossible for women 
>> to fuck?  What about lesbians?
>
>Absolutely not.  I have a strap-on (actually two) which I have so far
>only used on men (two of them).  For that matter, it is very clear that
>men *can* be "fucked," either by other men, or by women with the
>appropriate toys.  The poster you reply to is extremely heterocentric,
>not to mention pretty damn vanilla...*grin*.

Muffy, I agree...however, I would point out that "to fuck" doesn't
necessarily mean "to penetrate".  Altho, if you're ever in seattle,
we really *must* have lunch or ... -um- ... *something*

>"amorous inclinations"? Aha! I'm  
>not "not straight," I'm *inclined*.

I wonder...will the post get more flirtmail than the .sig?? Only time
will tell *grin*.

-jen
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: The Nice Guy Syndrome (was: Re: Male Men Bashers)
Organization: mydog in exile
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 19:22:54 GMT

| >rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
| >|       ...
| >| 	To me, it's a given.  I have tested it.  Act kind, understanding--
| >| 	no chance.  Be self centered, aloof and somewhat cold?  They come
| >| 	at you like flys to garbage.

gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
| >People can generally tell when someone is "acting."  It's
| >usually very off-putting.

jp776@macbeth.umd.edu (sregdoR .S treboR) writes:
| 	Wrong, Gordon.  Most people are playfully simple to manipulate.

Well, that's probably true for those who want to do it.
In a sense, everyone is always acting -- constructing a
presentation of themselves.  What I was thinking of was
the case where a person constructs a presentation which
is very much at variance with what she herself feels, or
believes to be true.  I think that sort of thing scares
people off.

This relates to the "nice guys can't get dates" syndrome
in this way: most people aren't nice.  If they act self-
centered, aloof, and cold, they're probably operating
closer to home than if they come on as interested in 
others, warm, and caring.  If a man looking for dates
pretends to be warm and caring when he's really cold and
aloof, I think it's going to make the objects of his
quest nervous.  They can tell the warm-and-caring is a
front, but they can't tell what's behind it.  Whereas if
he's cold and aloof, at least they're in contact with
what they're getting.  And since women are probably just
about as not-nice as men -- although they're trained
to express it differently -- that may be what they want 
anyway.

Maybe this thread is no longer about feminism and should
be dropped from the alt.feminism newsgroup?
-- 

 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:7509 soc.women:22963
From: zerobeat@intacc.uucp (Ferenc Szabo)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women
Subject: Re: Male Men Bashers
Date: 20 Jan 93 01:24:50 GMT
Organization: Inter/Access' Matrix BBS

>
Janice Kendall says:
>I am a woman and I wanted a "nice, sensitive guy".  I've dated self-centered
>jerks and as I matured and came to care more about my own "quality of life"
>(yep - it's, arghhh, SELF-ESTEEM!), I quit seeing the self-centered jerks
>as better-than-me-and-therefore-desirable, and saw them as self-centered
>jerks not worth wasting my time on.
>

Janice, I wish every woman would think as you do.  Unfortunately, in the 
sphere of people I happen to run across, the stereotype of the woman with
the self centered abusive/mysoginst asshole is prevalent enough make me
depressed sometimes.  I even know of woman who stick with their *physically*
abusive partners through thick and thin.  These men typically have something
about them (i dunno....nice car? money? idunno) that I suppose makes them
desirable (good bodies? good cooking? idunno).  Virtually all of these men
that I might talk to in private refer to women as 'them bitches' or other
derogatory terms.  THey *know* that they have this 'charm' or whatever it is
to "get the babes".  

About 4 years ago I think I almost became brainwashed into thinking that
YES, perhaps if I was a jerk like these other guys then women would pay 
attention to me.  But then instructional wisdom reasoned out that I might
not want to be close to a woman who would be attracted to an abusive SOB
anyway.

What I am trying to say is that it is not totally unfounded for many men
to perceive that women DON'T like 'nice guys'.

363 months on this planet and still optimistic that there are many more
women like Janice out there.............

ferenc
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Male Men Bashers
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:46:36 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <30120@oasys.dt.navy.mil> shorrow@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Paul Shorrow) writes:
>In soc.women, michael@neuron6.jpl.nasa.gov (Michael Rivero) writes:
>
>
>
>> That's how we vanish the elephant, start wars, and sell
>>50 billion dolars worth of hair color and facial mud every year in
>>this country. That's how certain vested political interests have sold
>>the idea that men are jerks.... even to some men.
>
> Well said, I am amazed at how the ads on TV suggest that we must use
> this  or that product to have the sexiest mouth...whitest clothes...
> and everthing in between.....maybe that is why most of my TV time is
> spent with PBS.

  
   That's why all of my TV time is spent reading a book or living
   my life rather than getting vicarious thrills watching someone
   else having fun on TV.

   Discussions about advertising invariably amount to: "I am a 
   self-actualized, free-willed individual who can think for
   himself; isn't it too bad there are so many gullible idiots
   out there who aren't like me and who are taken in by Madison
   Avenue?"              

   Madison Avenue cannot make anybody do anything.  It doesn't
   matter how many ads you've seen for a product (or a candidate
   or an idea) . . . ultimately you are responsible for your
   decision to buy, or buy into, it.   Whether or not you believe
   that men are jerks, or that women prefer jerks for SO's, or 
   whatever, is YOUR decision, not the fault of advertising -- 
   nobody forces you to even watch the advertising, nervermind
   believe it.   Any beliefe to the contrary, and claim that
   "society made me do it", is just another example of the
   ethos of "victimhood" I complained about here recently.


---peter




   
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Hillary's Role in the White House
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 05:38:35 GMT

psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:

>The appointment of Hillary to head up anything, regardless of her 
>qualifications, 

I'm sorry, but to me this simply says it all.  You admit that you
can't recall any explicit promise NOT to do this.  But then you argue
that even if she is the most qualified person in the world for a job
she shouldn't get it because.....well, apparently because you just
don't like her.

>Every administration that I know of had a nickname, Camelot, the shining
>city on the hill, a thousand points of lights etc., the Clinton administration
>seems to be shooting the label of, the ends justify the means bunch OR perhaps
>the do as we say not as we do government.

Ummmm, no, that would be the _previous_ 12 years.  As in no one should
ever be allowed to get an abortion unless she happens to be related to
the President.

>PSG

                    -rocker

>Looking at the condition and politics of the public
>school systems and Hollywood in the 90's, it seems in
>retrospect that the only mistakes Joseph McCarthy made
>were; not uncovering the right people and not finishing the job.

Happy witch hunting, dear.
From: RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Men doing Male Bashing
Date: 18 Jan 93 14:00:52 GMT
 <1993Jan18.025854.29081@netcom.com>
 <1993Jan18.072911.15112@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center


From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Men doing Male Bashing
-
-I do think whites as a class benefit from racism in this country.
-What does white privilege do for me as a white?  It means that I
-probably have a wider choice of housing, jobs, and opportunities than
-I would if I were black.  It means that I can drive an old, beatup car
-around Palo Alto and not be stopped by police for being suspected of
-being in the neighborhood to commit a crime.  It means that I'm not
-saddled with negative stereotypes about being white.
-
   Farthing is confusing benefits and a lack of loss.  The things that
he is mentioning are all things that everyone should have in a fair
society, not special privileges that whites have as a RESULT of blacks
being oppressed.  In other words, in a fair socity, everyone should be
able to drive in an old car without being hassled by the police.  So this
is not a special privilege, it is an ordinary right that some blacks,
as a matter of fact do not have.  But that is not a proof that  Farthing
is benefitting from blacks being oppressed.

Rohit Parikh
Newsgroups: alt.feminism