HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Subject: Re: Shibboleth (was: Re: Censorship)
Organization: QQQCLC
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 18:49:53 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.022614.11998@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>And so Hillel replies
>
>| That was very nice, now please tell us if you, *personally* see
>| see MacKinnon's anti-porno legislation as censorship.
>
>As I said -- this is twice now, although in different words
>-- I find the term "censorship", devoid of context,
>virtually meaningless.

	While it _is_ amusing to watch someone who thinks of himself as
"liberal" squirm, as he attempts to justify his support of repressive
ideas, I think I can help you out by rephrasing Hillel's question.
Rather than stumble around in arguments over the precise definition of
censorship, ask yourself this: are you in favor of _more_ or _less_
restraint on free expression than we have, today? And if more in some
areas, less in others, same question applied specifically to modes of
sexual expression: more repression, or less?

>If you mean by it "tending to more
>restriction of expression than I myself care for" then, yes,
>MacKinnon's law is "censorship", and so is Playboy (an ongoing 
>cultural project, Kenn) and quite possibly your politics as 
>well.

	This sentence no sense.

>I'm pretty radical on freedom of expression.

	This must be a definition of "free expression" with which I was
previously unfamiliar.

>But that's not the point, is it?  The point is to conjure 
>the demon DworkinMacKinnon, and thereby attack feminism in
>general.

	Credit where credit is due, Gordon. Dworkin and MacKinnon have
worked very hard to achieve the notoriety they have gotten. I have
nothing against feminism _qua_ feminism. I have spent more time on the
net arguing _against_ Hillel on child support issues than arguing
against you on censorship, and I have always characterized Dworkin and
MacKinnon as pseudo-feminists, since it is clear to me that their
hysteria about pornography has the usual roots in sexual neurosis, and
has nothing to do with feminism, properly defined.

	I think you're projecting. Whenever pushed to the wall you can
be found whispering faintly, as if you hope no one will hear, that you
_don't_ support the Dworkin-MacKinnon nonsense. Yet you seem to want to
project a facade of solidarity with them. Why?

	You've found a high platform from which to speak, but failed to
notice the noose and the trap door, and are carrying a petard in your
pocket. Every movement in history has had a lunatic fringe. You aren't
required to turn in your feminist credentials to recognize a Dworkin or
a MacKinnon as such. Open your eyes, and see who's really arguing
heartfelt beliefs, and who's just loyally rooting for those he believes
are the home team.

-  From the Crow's Nest  -                Kenn Barry
----------------------------------------------------------------
ELECTRIC AVENUE:    			barry@netcom.com
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,alt.sex
From: fedrick@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Kelvin W. Fedrick)
Subject: Re: Choice for men: moving beyond anti-feminism
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 03:06:19 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.221622.3677@umr.edu> asparrow@mcs213f.cs.umr.edu (Angelia Sparrow) writes:
>kelvin reccommends the diaphragm and jell or the
>sponge as not being messy or dangerous.
>
>No, but they are a total nuisance.  And yes, the
>diaphragm is messy, esp. when you drop it gel side down
>on the sheets.  They aren't nearly as much fun as
>a condom, which can be incorporated into foreplay
>and I seem to have trouble lubricating with a 
>diaphragm in.
>
>Also, my dr took a couple extra stitches on
>my episiotomy and the diaphragm takes up valuable
>space, turning a pleasant experience into a painful
>nightmare of stuffing 10 lbs of fertilizer into a 5 lb. sack.
>
>I am eagerly anticipating going back on the pill when
>the baby is weaned.
>
>But all the above is just my experience
>Angel

Ok, you're about the third person to say you dont like the diaphragm
but I'd just like to point out, as you say, that it is just your opinion.
My ex and I used it successfully for 2 1/2 years with no problems. No
messes from jell dropped on the sheet or any of the other problems you
sight. Furthermore, why are condoms fun and not diaprhams? Why can't
insertion of the diaphragm be worked into forplay? Why are diaphragms
a nuisance and condoms not? My point is that this is your opinion and
not universal. We did not find it to be a nuisance, any messier, or any
more of a distraction from forplay or less fun than doning a condom.

-kelvin
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Playboy
Date: 9 Oct 92 18:02:06 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Oct9.084305.12233@leland.Stanford.EDU>, farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:

> In article <1992Oct8.171430.1@vms.cis.pitt.edu> tjw+@pitt.edu writes:

>>In article <MUFFY.92Oct8104958@remarque.berkeley.edu>, muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

>>> my SO and I get negative comments if we kiss in
>>> public, because that's not something that "should be" displayed.  

>>Who tells you this?  I kiss all the time in public and have never been told
>>that I shouldn't be doing it?  Maybe that's a difference between CA and PA?

> And maybe it's the difference between having a s.o. of the same sex
> vs. one of the opposite sex?

That's possible.  Maybe Muffy will tell us.  There must be some reason why
kissing in CA will get you "negative comments".  I always thought that people
in CA were more liberal than elswhere.  Especially in Berkley.

Terry "kissing in PA and lovin' it" Wood
-- 
        INTERNET: tjw+@pitt.edu         BITNET: TJW@PITTVMS
"Laugh while you can, Monkey Boy!"                        - Lord "John" Warfin
"There can be only one!"                                  - The Highlander
"There should have been only one. I want my money back!"  - Terry
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek)
Subject: Re: The "feminist agenda"? (Was: Women as Victims)
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 06:37:38 GMT

mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:

>I read about NOWs (anti-censorship) stance in LIBIDO.  (A magazine
>which now has a hard time making it into Canada...)

These Canadian laws have been held up by _Ms._ as shining examples of 
the "victories" that would be possible if only the tradition of free speech
weren't so strong.

--
Paul Ciszek, pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu | No nation was ever drunk when wine was
                                   | cheap.   -- Thomas Jefferson
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: AA (was Re: Women as Victims (was: _Backlash_ ( Sort of )))
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 92 23:05:57 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.023933.15211@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>What we are actually seeing is brain-dead uproars about not enough women
>in fire departments. Obviously sexist discrimination, right? The simple
>truth is that there had been no female applicants.

No female applicants anywhere?  I find that extremely hard to believe.

>Do you believe that it was right for a recent scientific convention to
>exclude men? This is real. Why should one be OK, while the other is not?
>If women feel this way (and obviously some do), and act this was (again
>some do), then what should we do about that?

More details, please.  If it were a generic scientific convention,
that is wrong.  If it is a convention for women in science, the
exclusion of men may be reasonable.

>Your question makes no sense to me. Society changes slowly, changes take
>place -across- generations more tham within them. The old generation believes
>what they were taught was right. You are not going to change that, and
>many of them are in power. But they will die, and those who grew up
>thinking differently will eventually take over. How long will it take for
>large scale change? There has been much already, but it has been gradual.

How gradual can it be before something must be done?  

Look at it this way.  If you knew that nearly everytime you were up
for a college interview, a job interview, or a job promotion, the
people judging you were to be black lesbian women, how would you feel?
Would you feel good about that?  Would you just say to yourself,
"Well, if I'm the best person, I'll get the job, the fellowship, the
promotion."?  And if these black lesbian women felt more comfortable
working with other black lesbian women, would it bother you to lose a
job or promotion because of that?  And if you were to see only black
lesbian women getting jobs, or fellowships, or job promotions, would
you feel slighted?  Would you think it's okay if they interviewed
white hetero men, none of whom just ever seemed to be a "good fit"?
Or if white hetero men were so oppressed by the situation that they
didn't even bother to apply for jobs, and the black lesbian women
said, "But we don't even have white hetero men applying for jobs, so
what's the big fuss?"?

Pardon me for using black lesbian women as the people in power here
(especially since they're probably some of the most powerless people
around).  But can you put yourself in the position of most women, most
minorities?  Where all you see are white, hetero men in power?  And
we're supposed to depend on their good will to get jobs, fellowships,
post-docs, promotions?

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Subject: Re: At the Barricades (was: Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda)
Organization: QQQCLC
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 20:15:28 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.173809.25862@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>I think Muffy's point was that all the Bunnies look similar and this is
>consistent with the general opinion in our society that women have to
>look like a Bunny to feel good about their sexuality.  

	Sorry, I guess I still don't get it. Sure, I suppose I feel bad
that some women don't have a good self image. I also feel bad that
sunshine can give you sunburn, and that I won't live forever. But I
don't spend much time bemoaning the inevitable.

	I guess I'm not aware of this general opinion of society's. I do
understand that cultures always pressure the members of the culture to
conform, subtly or not-so-subtly, and that standards of female beauty
are an example of that, but that's the nature of the beast.

	Some people just don't know _how_ to be happy, Rini, because
they think it's something outside of themselves that they have to locate
and obtain. Beauty myths aren't the problem. I doubt the correlation
between happiness and good looks is any better than the correlation
between happiness and wealth, which ain't very good. A fulfilling sex
life with a caring partner will do far more than a hunk's or playmate's
body for anyone's sexual self image, and neither wealth nor good looks
seem to be necessary for that.

	My gripe is not with sad but obvious truths, but with the Blame
Game, as played by MacKinnon and others: "Blame the angels, blame the
fates, blame the Jews or your sister Kate". Or blame Playboy or porn for
violence against women, or breast implants, or anorexia. Such abstract
truth as may be found in very general observations about human foibles
can't be the basis for political platforms, because nearly any glib
prescription can be rhetorically hung from them, but they really won't
bear the weight. Such rhetoric is the rhetoric of sermons: adored by
believers, full of conviction, but empty of objective substance.

-  Nothing fails like success  -             Kenn Barry
----------------------------------------------------------------
ELECTRIC AVENUE:                             barry@netcom.com
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Censorship (was : Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda)
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 20:48:09 GMT

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:

[...]
>Action taken after the fact is not censorship. To censor if to filter
>and allow only PC material through. If porno was censored, then it would
>not be legally printed or sold. That is, to sue for libel is not to
>censor, because the libelous <whatever> has already gone into the
>public domain. It's the difference between a while loop and an until
>loop.
[...]

You have defined "prior restraint". Court in the U.S. used to see
this as the only kind of censorship, but now see some cases of
punishment after publication as censorship, too.

- Carl

--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine)
Subject: Re: My School's Sleaziest Scoundrel
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 14:16:32 GMT

gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:

>In article <92279.022349ROWHC@CUNYVM.BITNET> <ROWHC@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:

>>Now there is a lot of hostility, direspect and disgust directed at this girl.
>>She really thinks she can take care of herself, but she obviously cannot.

>Has she ever asked you to take care of her?

>>Talk rages on for hours at end, and while I disdain gossip, what can I do?
>>I recall the hospital story, and countless other tales this man has
>>bragged to me about, then this invasion of my own staff, and I'm perfectly
>>livid. The girl has to go, nobody can stand her sight anymore. Nothing
>>personal, it is simply unforgivable to stoop so low as to fuck this guy,

>Please spell it out for me why the girl has to go.

>Why is it your fucking business who she fucks?

>>Nothing can get through to her...not even the semen stains on her editor's
>>chair, bragged about by Fernando. It dawns on me that this woman represents
>>a leadership vacuum. She might have to go too, replaced by a strong person
>>who can stand up to injustice and recognize abberrant behavior.

>Even if that "strong person" will be a white male...?

>>campus. Hut it really has nothing to do with WHY we want him out. We
>>want to protect the women. Stains on the chair indicate unprotected sex.

>Do you want to protect the women against their will?

>What you miss is that trying to protect people who don't want your
>protection is a great way to enslave them.  Please be careful.

>Hillel                                        gazit@cs.duke.edu

>Nobody needs "friends" who are doing the friendship to rack up
>gold stars in heaven or anywhere else.  --  Mara Chibnik

Mara, this guy's *strategy* for taking care of the problem seems 
quite misguided. But I think his perception of Fernando's viciousness
rings true.

I knew a guy like that once -- a real soul eater. He made a hobby out
of getting women to fall in love with him and then dumping them.
He drove several women to suicide.

Note that this was in the 70's, when "sexual liberation" was valued.
Nobody seemed to understand that this guy's definition of "sexual
liberation" was: You have no emotional obligations to your friends,
if you fuck them.

Mara, please don't be too hard on Hillel. I think his heart's in the
right place. I think he's inexperienced at worst -- but doesn't the spectacle
of a young man, confronted by the wicked actions of a social predator
he doesn't know how to fight, deserve some sympathy?

Lenore Levine

P.S. I'm glad I gave the "soul eater" indigestion. But that's another
story.
From: litow@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (bruce e litow)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: fish need bicycles
Date: 11 Oct 1992 14:23:36 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.41
Keywords: fish  bicycles  need
Originator: litow@proclus.csd.uwm.edu

Fish need bicycles. This has been evident to me for years, and to fish.
And don't give me that old saw that fish cannot learn to ride bicycles.
A moment's reflection (pi/3) will reveal how this may be accomplished.

Recycle Fish !

Xref: sparky alt.feminism:2609 soc.men:17778 alt.sex:33085
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Choice for men: moving beyond anti-feminism
Date: 16 Oct 92 00:11:01 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

Angel:
>>the diaphragm and jell or the
>>sponge as not being messy or dangerous....
>>No, but they are a total nuisance....
>>turning a pleasant experience into a painful
>>nightmare 
>>But all the above is just my experience

Kevin:
>My ex and I used it successfully for 2 1/2 years with no problems. No
>messes from jell dropped on the sheet or any of the other problems you
>sight. Furthermore, why are condoms fun and not diaprhams? Why can't
>insertion of the diaphragm be worked into forplay? Why are diaphragms
>a nuisance and condoms not? 
> We did not find it to be a nuisance, any messier, or any
>more of a distraction from forplay or less fun than doning a condom.

Why is it always (OK, maybe not always, but at least often) women
telling us that diaphrams are a problem, and men insisting that 
they are not?  And why are these men always (OK, maybe just sometimes)
telling us about what their *ex* used to think?

Kinda makes you wonder....

							--  Michal
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)
Subject: Re: The "feminist agenda"? (Was: Women as Victims)
Organization: DigiBoard Incorporated, Eden Prairie, MN
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 21:27:55 GMT

gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:
>Dworkin and MacKinnon wrote the first "new" anti-porno laws - in Minneapolis.

>Are they men?

>Is Minneapolis a conservative city?
>(Hint: who won in 1984 in Minn., but lost in 49 other states?)
(And what's his home state?)

Did the Mpls. anti-porn law pass?

No, but you'd never know this listening to Hillel.

'course, you'd never learn anything listening to Hillel.

---
Merlyn LeRoy
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:2608 soc.men:17777
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Clinton Gore position on women
Date: 16 Oct 92 00:04:54 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

fedrick@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Kelvin W. Fedrick) writes:

>>Yep.  That's right.  He made that choice *before* the birth
>>control failure when he decided to take his dick out of his 
>>pants and stick it into a woman.

>Using your dick is *not* equivalent to making a choice to have a child.
>Got it!?

No, I don't "got it".  Sex is a priviledge, not a right.  If a person
(male or female) chooses to exercise this privilidge, they must also
be willing to countenance the responsibilities that may ensue.

>Furthermore you and your cohorts only apply this standard to the man. What
>would happen if we applied it to the woman? Let's see. She made her decision
>when she spread her legs 

Almost....

While abortion is *legal* a woman makes that decision when she allows the
pregnancy to continue past the point when it can  no longer be legally
terminated.  If abortion is *illegal* then a woman makes that decision 
at the point when she agrees to sex.

(Sticky point:  what if abortion is *illegal* but the woman is raped?
I see this as a travesty because then the woman has *no choice* at all.)

							--  Michal
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Subject: Re: Censorship (was : Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda)
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 17:35:22 GMT

>gf:
>| >but McKinnon does have a theory and in order to trash it
>| >properly you're going to have to understand what it is.
>| 
HG:
>| Ha?
>| 
>| Do you have to read every line in a program in order to show that
>| there is a bug there?
>| 
>| Can't you decide that there is a bug in a theory by looking in its
>| conclusions?  (Have you ever heard about "counter example?)
>| 
>| Don't you know that censorship is the result of MacKinnon's theories?

I don't know about where you work, but even in my lax workplace, we can't just
look at a program's output, see that it's buggy and then throw the program out.
We generally have to then dissect the program, examine its innards (its specs,
if such exist are seldom accurate enough, though often helpful), figure out
what it was supposed to do, and then fix it or start from scratch with a
program that does the right thing.

Ergo, perhaps you should read and understand more of MacKinnon's stuff to see
where she went wrong.  Maybe you could find and answer to the problems her
program is supposed to correct.
We wonder if you even understand the problems.
You answer that the program to solve the problem has a bug.
Does not compute.
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: hal@nexus.yorku.ca (Harvey Haldorson)
Subject: Re: The word 'woman'
Organization: York University
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 19:42:02 GMT

Oxford English Dictionary aside, one of the researchers here suggested
to me that the prefix that became "wo" in woman had a corralate prefix
for the male.  Thus while the female reference was conflated to woman,
the prefix was dropped for the male.  I am not sure what her evidence
for this is, but will find out if anyone is interested.


Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
From: merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)
Subject: Re: Violent Di Batters Charles
Organization: DigiBoard Incorporated, Eden Prairie, MN
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1992 19:36:13 GMT
Keywords: Poor Little Princess!

sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>From the National Enquirer, Sept. 26 (approx), 1992:

A skeptic posts "information" from the National Enquirer.  Yeah, right.

---
Merlyn LeRoy
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Those Nasty Pictures (was: Re: Unreasonable Objections? ...)
Date: 10 Oct 92 05:29:19 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
| >The point is that she will arrange -her- envirnment to suite her tastes,
| >as will I. How is it that she is not responsible if I do not like her
| >(what is the name of the mens pinup calander?) male pinup calendar?

sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
| Let's carry this reasoning to its logical conclusion.
| 
| Never mind the Chippendales. Suppose that this woman has some sort of
| feminist calendar or poster in her office, which contains the usual
| kind of message about how women are so wonderful and men are bad.
| Now, I personally feminism to be offensive because it expresses hatred
| of men, and I happen to be male. So, I presume that under
| the existing MacKinnon rules against sexual harassment, I can force her
| to take her feminist poster or calendar down? 

Let's invoke Godwin's Law on this one.  Suppose someone
wants to put up a picture of Hitler?
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder)
Subject: Re: Freshman
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 12:36:54 GMT

Besides the fact that the question was to show me that 'freshman' is not
genderless, I would suggest that you cannot show me that many women feel 
slighted by the word 'freshman'.  I am open-minded--when presented with 
FACTS, not when told how to think and act by other people.

Once again I will ask (as have others now): Where are your FACTS? And
remember, you are the one who said that many women are offended by the term.

BTW, try looking up the definition of freshman, and also see how it is used
in everyday speech.  No one says "she is a female freshman" that is redundant.
Since freshman is NEUTRAL, 'she' is enough to show that the person to whom you
are referring is female.

JerkfaceJeffy   :^]
Newsgroups: alt.feminism