HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: charleen@ADS.COM (Charleen Bunjiovianna)
Subject: Re: Double Standards for Insensitivity
Organization: The Original Estrogen-Crazed Lust Bunnies
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 23:58:15 GMT

In article <1b2as1INN366@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>
>There's a difference.  Men make jokes about what women *are*
>(eg, being premenstrual).  Women make jokes about what men *do*
>(eg, behaving in an insensitive fashion).

Oh, right <snort>.  This just in from a female co-worker:

Q:  What's the difference between men and U.S. Savings Bonds?
A:  Savings bonds mature.

Big yuk-a-yuk-a-yuk around here.

Charleen

--
A funeral procession was passing the municipal golf course.  One golfer
removed his hat, placed it over his heart and bowed his head.  One of
the other golfers commented how thoughtful that was.  The guy replied,
"It's the least I could do.  After all, we were married for almost 40 years."
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda (Was: Value of...)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 21:20:35 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.154456.9613@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>>>is being extremely rude.  Whether it should be illegal or considered
>>>harrassment is discussed elsewhere, but I'll just throw in that I wouldn't
>>>want federal law to outlaw Playboy on any wall of any workplace, but that if
>>>somebody is really offended by Playboy on the wall they have to look at, it
>>>should go.
>>
>>What about that Bikini calander? I have one on my wall right now (not at
>>work, the other one is jet fighters, both get used, and I enjoy looking
>>at both of them). Oddly, I do not recall a single line in the Constitution
>>or Bill of Rights protecting one from being offended. And people get offended
>>at the damnest things.
>
>You're probably not gonna like this answer.
>Suppose I was your boss.
>Suppose somebody else had to spend time in the area where either calendar was.
>Supoose that person found either calendar objectionable enough to complain that

Suppose none of this was true? I have problems when supposes must be stacked too
high. For the record, no one else works in my cube, and most of the time,
neither do I. Suppose she found my jets calendar objectionable, for whatever
reason, why should this be a firing offense?

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?

<light goes on over my head> Chippendales!

>it made it hard for them to work/concentrate.
>I'd ask you to take it down.
>People do get offended by the damndest things.  

Fact - that is their problem alone, most of the time.

Fact - harrasment laws make me legally responsible for her tastes, no matter
how prudish or different from mine. They give me no such power, harrasment
laws are sexist from the get-go.

Why should a womans personal preferance take precedance over mine own in
my enviornment?
 
>For the record:  I DON'T WANT PORNO CENSORED!

A bikini calendar is NOT PORNO, and I was -not- in any way asking/referring
to PORNO. This question was asked a bit ago, and a female poster (whos name
escapes me) responded with a story about playboy centerfolds, completely
missing the point and the question. It seems to some extent, you have done
the same. 

>I do think a person who HAS to be in an area for work deserves courteous
>behavior from co-workers which INCLUDES removal of offensive pictures or
>whatever.

And as I stated, these calanders are at my home. If anyone does not
like them, they can feel free to leave. The possibility exists that
someday if harrasment laws are extended, they may have the right to
dictate my enviornment at home as well. 

>"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu

Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Women as Victims (was:_Backlash_ ( Sort of ))
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 07:47:19 GMT

In article <DSTEINBE.92Oct7095856@emmy.nmsu.edu> dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg) writes:
>I see the point behind some of the sexual harrasment arguments, but
>you can't deny that many of them are restrictions on speech.  If you
>think the restrictions are justified, then defend them.  But don't try
>saying that they're not.

Of course, some of them are restrictions on speech.  And yet, in a
working environment, aren't there already restrictions on speech?  

I don't know about you, but I think most people would quickly be in
trouble if they started calling a coworker a fuckhead, a nigger, a
yid (insert derogatory comment of choice).

Is it reasonable to expect a Jewish worker to share an office with
someone who puts up Hitler posters?  How uncomfortable can you make
someone until your actions and/or speech become harassment?
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: At the Barricades (was: Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda)
Date: 8 Oct 92 14:28:38
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1992Oct4.222702.18468@netcom.com> <1992Oct7.214506.10583@panix.com>
	<1992Oct8.142924.14462@netcom.com>
	<MUFFY.92Oct8104958@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<1992Oct8.191709.29014@javelin.sim.es.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: biesel@javelin.sim.es.com's message of Thu, 8 Oct 1992 19:17:09 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.191709.29014@javelin.sim.es.com> biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel) writes:
>muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

>>[...] They reject my friend's sexuality
>>(or any display which might indicate that she has any such thing)
>>because she doesn't have the right body.  Some of the comments she gets
>>are *extremely* hostile.

>I believe it. What, if anything, do you think we should do about it, and
>why, in light of your later comment:

>>You know how a mob sometimes just all start doing the same thing, even
>>though they didn't talk about it before?  That is not a conspiracy, that
>>is just the way people work.

Well, first, I wasn't indicating that we should do *anything* in my
post; it was merely to demonstrate that society was, in fact, hostile to
sexuality.

However, what I think needs to be done is to generate more acceptance of
sex and sexuality in society.  Unfortunately, I don't have much idea of
how to do this on other than a small scale (discussions with people,
"outness," etc.).

I'm not sure how my comments on society not being a conspiracy come in,
though.  Just because it is not the case that the majority in society is
conspiring against women, people with alternative sexualities, etc.,
does not mean that their views are right, or that their views cannot be
changed.  How do *you* think this (my comment on conspiracy) relates to
your question?

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
~Little round planet/in a big universe/sometimes it looks blessed/
 sometimes it looks cursed/Depends on what you look at, obviously/
 But even more it depends on the way that you see~ - Bruce Cockburn
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: The "feminist agenda"? (Was: Women as Victims)
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 15:39:17 GMT

In article <718442825@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.170150.20324@midway.uchicago.edu> 
>mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>>Are you sure about NOW?  I know for a fact that NOW's NY and CA chapters
>>have taken a definite position against the Pornography Victim's 
>>Compensation Act.
>
>In 1980 NOW passed a resolution condemning pornography and S&M
>as exploitation and violence.  Assuming that you are right about
>the situation today, what, in your opinion, has caused the change?

Dunno.  My assumption would be that it had something to do with
the members of NOW voting or something like that.  

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

>>Did you notice, btw, that the committee that drafted the PVCA are all
>>men, mostly conservative republicans, and already on feminists' 
>>shitlists after the Anita Hill spectacle?  
>
>Dworkin and MacKinnon wrote the first "new" anti-porno laws - in Minneapolis.
>
>Are they men?

Um -- no, they are not men.  Can't you tell?  :)

>Is Minneapolis a conservative city?

No it is not.  What's your point?

What is this?  Tit for tat?  I'm just trying to say that not all feminists
and feminist organizations are anti-porn, and furthermore, Hillel, that
much of the pro-censorship fight is coming directly from conservative
republicans. 

I do not deny that some feminists work for censorship.  IMO, they are full
of shit.  I would hope that you do not deny that the republican party has
written support of the PVCA into their platform.  IMO, they are also full
of shit.  

rini
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: At the Barricades
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 20:27:49 GMT

biesel@javelin.sim.es.com writes:

>Please recall, your original comment referred to the behavior of a
>mob, the unplanned collective action of a group of people, presumably
>an innate response. 

It was my impression that mob behavior is most often explained by
"group psychology."  I have not seen this literature presuppose 
"innate responses," though I have limited exposure to it.

I think your difference with Muffy here is boiling down to the
old nature/nurture morass ^H^H^H^H^H^H distinction. (?)

rini
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Why Gordon Is a Feminist
Date: 15 Oct 92 15:09:09 GMT
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
 
>>While that's certainly part of the feminist movement, I believe
>>that Gordon was trying to point out a different facet of it:  the
>>conquest for the "feminine" by men.  

>What that has to do with feminism?

For you, maybe nothing.  For me and my husband, quite a bit.  

>Another problem is that Gordon ignores that fact that all those
>"feminine" good qualities need a non-feminine someone to do the
>dirty jobs of maintaining the environment which is needed around them.
>If men will stop to provide the environment, the system will break
>apart.  As a result, it is a feminist interest to keep men in their
>place - over-worked, dying young, losing custody but pay $$$$
>as child support and alimony.
>
>If too many men will have the option of taking the "feminine" path 
>then not enough people will keep the system running, 
>and it will break apart.

I can't speak for Gordon (and I don't really want to), but the way it
has worked out with my spouse and I is that I will be the main
wage earner, and he will be the primary parent.  For us, it was
feminism that helped us see that that decision made the most sense
for us.  My husband is thrilled that he will be able to pursue what 
he would *really* find meaning in: the raising of our children.  
I am thrilled that I will be able to do the career thing without
giving up kids.  For us, feminism allowed us to make those 
decisions without feeling like we were somehow "failures" at our
[pre-assigned] roles.

rini
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Subject: Who's responsible in rape? (Was Re: Observations from male studentnt)
Reply-To: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena, CA
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 00:11:26 GMT

zen@death.corp.sun.com (d) writes:
>  *LET* them?  *LET* them?  You imply that people have a choice in the
>matter?  Jesus, do you think anyone *lets* someone rape them?

Yes, in fact, I think people have a choice in the matter. Awareness of that
choice, however, is not always there...

>  I haven't forgotten.  But you still say, by virtue of existing, that
>you are responsible if you are raped.  That's really bizarre.

Well, it's not a concept most people entertain. I feel that you are 
responsible for everything that happens in your life, period. Awareness 
of that responsibility is (again) another matter.

None of these awarnesses justify any acts a "real" rapist commits. 

>If someone says "no" to sex, then you don't force them to have sex with
>you.  If you do, it's rape.

I agree totally! But that's not my point...

What about the person who says yes...and then later lies about
that? It's a logical extension of the other extreme. There are 
basically two outer areas:

*) If you apply a "victim worldview" then you make it possible for
other innocents to be "victimized" by taking the "rapee's" word
as "implicit" truth. 

*) If you apply a "anti-victim worldview" then you make it possible
for the original innocents to be "victimized" by taking the "rapists"
word as "implicit" truth.

You can acknowledge the validity of both by taking each occurence of
rape on it's own merits and "judging" it from that.

You can disavow the validity of either (my personal viewpoint...your
milage may vary) by acknowledging the responsibilities of every human being. 


-- 
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov       dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov         ...usc!elroy!dxh

   A man was claiming to be a Prophet. He was taken before the Church.
   "Prophets reveal miracles," said the Minister. "What is yours?"
   The man replied: "I have the ability to read thoughts.  Right now
               you are all thinking that I am lying."
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: pilgrim@daimi.aau.dk (Jakob G}rdsted)
Subject: Re: Who's responsible in rape? (Was Re: Observations from male studentnt)
Organization: DAIMI: Computer Science Department, Aarhus University, Denmark
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 19:59:04 GMT

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

>dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>>>I'll remember that next time it rains.  (I guess accepting responsibility
>>>for the rain is the first step in making it stop, right?)
> 
>>Part of accepting responsibility for the rain is using an umbrella...

>Do you really mean to say that?

Of course, what he means is, that if you are raped, you should remember
to use a condom(preservative)...

>Dave -- you and I -- we share absolutely *no* responsilibity for the
>rain.  Snow either.  Not even tornados.  It's true.  Really.

>If you choose to believe/argue otherwise, you have no place in rational
>debate.

I would say, his original posting showed his place allright :-)
(which, I'd say, is not in rational debate)
>rini
--
      Jakob Gaardsted   .    .  | Black Rainbow(TM)     .         .      .
  Computer Science Department . |. Invaporated      .        .        .    .
University of Aarhus, Jylland(!)|   .            .      . Cordless Life  .  .
 .  pilgrim@daimi.aau.dk   .    |          .    .    .     Pointless Mouse .
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: A fish w/out a bike
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 13:38:17 GMT

In article <1992Oct11.005631.16323@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>In article <718690599@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>>"A woman without a man is like a fish without bicycle."
>
>I have never seen this as a slam on men.
>
>I see this as challenging the assumption that people are only
>valued when they are paired up in neat little boy-girl boy-girl
>boy-girl rows, from here to eternity.


Actually, didn't U2 reword it to:

  "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle"  ?

Maybe I'm wrong -- but that was my impression of the meaning, anyway: 

   Women have no use for men.

Hence it's a slam.  In either direction.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:2172 alt.sex:32177
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Censorship
Date: 7 Oct 92 15:06:03 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

In article <1992Oct7.071509.17723@nwnexus.WA.COM> 
elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) writes:
>   Feel free, Hillel.  As I recall, though dimly, gay male pornography
>wasn't seen so much as "exploitation" of women, but as "violence
>towards" women, because it depicts a sexually charged world devoid of
>any feminine qualities whatsoever, and therefore inures gay men to the
>sexuality of women (like they care).

The Minneapolis Antipornography Ordinance states that:
#(2) The use of men, children, or transexuals in the place of women...
#is pornography for purposes of... this statute.

The bottom line is that everything that offends the Vanilla Sex
Brigade should be banned, even if the arguments are very *weak*.
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Who's responsible in rape? (Was Re: Observations from male studentnt)
Date: 15 Oct 92 23:47:47 GMT
Reply-To: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena, CA

mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:
>>My point almost exactly. I wouldn't say thet someone was "asking for it"
>>if they did that, I would say that they share some of the responsibility
>>for the acto of rape. There's a difference. 
>Maybe you could spell out this difference.  If s/he wasn't "asking for it"
>what were they doing?  

How about "not asking for it"?

>"Allowing it to happen"??  

Creating more of a chance that this would happen.

>Would this be different...raped in their own home by a family member?

Of course, because the circumstances are different. 

>>Given that 
>>1) there exists a class of people who cry "rape" after consenting to sex
>>2) the prevailing wisdom says that anyone who continues after saying no
>>is a rapist
>>then from 1, one cannot always determine when someone is really saying "no"
>>since the "no" can be retroactive. Therefore no one should have sex for fear
>>of raping someone.
>Hmm.  I totally fail to see the relevance.  Try alt.non-sequitur.

It's deep. It also comes from an assumption of mine that, given two people
whom you do not know, if one person said they were raped and another denied
it...you would tend to believe the former more than you would the latter. 

Is this true?


--
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: EVIL PLAYBOY!!!!
Summary: OK, my newsreader hosed the subject line again.
Date: 9 Oct 92 23:31:56 GMT
Reply-To: tjw+@Pitt.edu
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Oct9.185028.18017@netcom.com>, barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:

> In article <MUFFY.92Oct9095132@anableps.berkeley.edu> muffy@anableps.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

>>I've probably read 2-3 dozen issues of it.  Perhaps your experience of
>>it is wider, but I *have* read it.

> 	Then why does your description bear no relationship to the
> contents of the magazine? Playboy has consistently, since its inception,
> confined its jackoff material to its photo spreads. It simply doesn't
> publish the kind of stories you describe, though plenty of its
> competitors do. 

Keep in mind that the magazine has been publishing since the middle (?) 50s.
Muffy's sample size of 24 to 36 issues is actually quite small.  So small,
in fact, that it seems difficult to believe any conclusion that she draws
from her sampling of the magazine.  She didn't say when her sampling occurred.


I've been reading Playboy since the early 60s (my parents subscribed because
they had TRADITIONAL FAMILY VALUES) and I've noticed a change in the magazine
during that time.  The PLAYBOY ADVISOR, for instance, has become more
technical and straight forward, having far fewer of the "here's my sexual
experience last weekend" (if none at all of these in the past 10 years).
Those type of articles have moved to (re)PENTHOUSE.

So don't fault Muffy too much.  I've known many researchers who didn't have
a valid sample size for the conclusions they were drawing!

> I can only judge your familiarity with Playboy by what
> you write. And when what you write bears so little resemblance to
> reality, I suspect someone's trying to force a conclusion.

Or she could just be misinformed.  Perhaps she doesn't know PLAYBOY from
PENTHOUSE or HUSTLER.  That's a possibility.  Or maybe you are right!


> And if you hadn't brought up fictional "specifics" about Playboy I'd
> have taken your post for what you probably intended it to be, a
> complete digression from the original subjects of MacKinnon and
> Playboy, and not responded.

Does Muffy do this? ;-)

Terry
-- 
        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: sfadden@deimos.ucc.umass.edu (Steve Fadden)
Subject: On Responsible Consumerism
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 12:05:00 GMT

I am posting this to ask all subscribers to alt.feminism about their opinions
regarding purchasing and investing in "socially responsible" companies.  My 
apologies if this has already been discussed, but the newsfile has just been 
added to our news server.

Briefly stated, I believe that our purchases and investments are excellent 
(though relatively slow to work) tools in influencing what messages different 
companies and corporations are sending out.  Not just the outright propaganda
that is being sent out on television (e.g. The Arthur DeMoss Foundation's 
ad campaign against abortion), but the more covert, subtle messages that are 
passed by consumers everyday.

An example that I read this morning is on a package of brown sugar that I and 
my housemate had bought.  It's called "Jack Frost Sugar - Dark Brown" and is 
manufactured by Refined Sugars, Inc. in New York.

The message on the back panel is as follows:

     "Jack Frost sugar is the pure sweet sugar your mother relied on 
      to create some of your most mouthwatering childhood memories...
      Today, you can rely on the same fine quality sugar to turn all
      that you touch into memories as sweet as your own.  
      Memories are made with Jack Frost."

I am publically and personally offended by the sexist content, and (as has 
been done with many campanies now) am responding accordingly to Refined Sugars
with an announcement of my household's (and extended family, as well as anyone
else I can influence) refusal to buy any of their products until they either
change the message to be gender-neutral, or ban it altogether.

I know one person can't control the outcome of a company, nor can an individual
undo all of the subtle sexism (or whatever social injustice) that has pervaded 
our society (or any other) since its establishment.

Please send any personal opinions or flames to me directly.  If this has been 
discussed before, I once again apologize for bringing it up again.  Otherwise,
I would like to see people's different opinions about responsible consumerism,
the implications, and the "bigger picture."  

Regards,

- Steve
...............................................................................
: Steve Fadden                                    sfadden@ucsvax.ucc.umass.edu :
: University of Massachusetts, Amherst                              Psychology :
Newsgroups: alt.feminism