HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: 890530m@dragon.acadiau.ca (Darren MacKenzie)
Subject: Re: Censorship
Organization: Acadia University
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:56:51 GMT

>#(1) *Special Findings on Pornography:  The council finds that pornography
>#is central in creating and maintaining the civil inequality of the sexes.
>#Pornography is a systematic practice of exploitation and subordination
>#based on sex which differentially harms women.  The bigotry and contempt
>#it promotes, with the acts of aggression it fosters, harm women's 
>#opportunities for equality of rights in employment, education, property
>#rights, public accommodations and public services; create public
>#harassment and private denigration; promote injury and degradation
>#such as rape, battery and prostitution and inhibit just enforcement of
>#the laws against such acts; contribute significantly to restricting women
>#for the full exercise of citizenship and participation in public life,
>#including in neighborhoods; damage relations between the sexes; and
>#undermine women's sexual exercise of rights to speech and action 
>#guaranteed to all citizens under the constitutions and laws of the
>#United States and the State of Minnesota.
>...........................................................................
>#(1) Pornography is the sexually explicit subordination of women,
>#graphically depicted, whether in pictures or words, that also 
>#includes one more of the following:
>#
>#    (i) women are presented as dehumanized sexual objects, things
>#    or commodities; or
>.....................................................................

I've seen a jot of garbage on this group, but I've never seen such a crock
of shit as the preceeding paragraphs.  Pornography is NOT the exploitation
of women.  I've seen many the "porno" movie, and the male is depicted at
the same (if not worse) state than the female.  It is NOT only women...it
is both genders.  And as far it viewing it goes...if you don't like it, don't
watch it.  Also...as far as jobs and rapes and soforth...that is all BULLSHIT,
and anyone that tries to say otherwise is living in an idealistic world of
make-believe...with leprechauns (sp?), and fairies with funny little hats.
Stop censorship, and let what is there stay there...and give the people who
happen to enjoy it (including with SO) a chance to keep it.  Once again,
if you don't like it...DON'T WATCH IT!  Don't be so fucking stupid!!
-Doc
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:1685 soc.men:16986 soc.women:17094
From: zorro@picasso.ocis.temple.edu (John Grabowski)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: _Backlash_
Date: 28 Sep 92 02:31:47 GMT
Organization: Temple University
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

I read both Backlash and a book she discusses a lot--The Closing of the 
American Mind by Alan Bloom.  Now, I didn't agree with a good deal of 
Bloom's book (though much of it was quite insightful), but he should
at least be given the courtesy of being quoted in proper context.  Faludi
didn't do that, and if she's that fast-and-loose with Bloom, I can imagine
what she did with others' POVs whose original writings I haven't read.

Not a book I'd recommend.

John
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Sexy clothing encourage rape?
Date: 3 Oct 1992 17:59:08 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

About being oogled/stared at:

Staring at someone is *rude*.  Period.
No matter how someone is dressed, if you are staring at them
you are out of line.
If you are truly so deficient in self-control that you 
absolutely cannot help yourself from staring, at least try
to minimize your transgression by staring discretely.

						--  Michal
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Childcare
Date: 2 Oct 92 18:49:33 GMT
Reply-To: tjw+@pitt.edu
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Oct2.105047.12112@leland.Stanford.EDU>, farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:

> Librarians complain of children
> coming from school to the public libraries because there's nowhere
> else for them to go, thus the libraries act as babysitters.

Recently, my spouse, who is a children's librarian, has found children left
in the library by their parents who are attending classes or doing research
in other parts of the library.  Often these very young children are left
beyond closing time because the parent is unable to make it back to the
library in time.

Affordable child care in the United States is desperately needed.  The "stay
at home" mom and the "working" dad are a relic of the 1950s.  Both parents
need to work in a family today and the children are caught in the middle.

If the Republican Party of the United States was truly interested in
"Traditional Family Values", you would think that child care would be much
higher on their list of priorities than a capital gains tax break.  Perhaps
people are becoming tired of being "trickled down" upon!

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
From: shomer@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Choice for men
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 11:34:27 PDT
Reply-To: shomer@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us

In article <1992Sep25.151539.10174@midway.uchicago.edu>, 
mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (Rini Clarkberg) writes:
> In article <robert.717388320@labyrinth> 
> robert@informix.com (Robert Coleman) writes:
> 
> >	A list of anti-draft organizations isn't an answer; it's a diversion of
> >the question.  Why isn't the draft at the top of the list of burning gender
> >issues for a "gender-equality" movement?  Answer: feminism isn't a
> >gender-equality movement.  
> 
> Yes, and no.  I'm of the opinion myself that this is a very sexist society,
> and that men and women both suffer from it.  Feminists, I think, are
> primarily working on the female side of this shitty deal.  But doesn't that
> make sense?  They are mostly women, and they see those problems most clearly.
> 
> I don't think you would see any of them, however, complaining for about a
> movement which worked on destroying the shitty deal men get in this society.
> 
> So I think it *is* a gender equality movement (at least for some, me included)
> that primarily wages it's battles from the women's side because that makes
> most sense for the soldiers.  If there are those for whom it makes sense
> to fight on the men's side, the more power to them.  
> 
> And if it makes sense for you to fight for gender equality by working on
> the draft issue, I encourage you, Robert, to do that.  I support you 
> whole heartedly.  

The longer this thread keeps going, the more curious I am whether Robert
has ever worked against the draft or resisted the draft. Was it ever 
HIS priority, or is the draft just a convenient issue to use to bash
feminism? 'Cause if this issue is important to him, I have some friends
doing anti-draft work with San Diego high school students who could 
really use some of his money!

Not even pacifists make the draft a priority these days; pacifist
groups like the War Resisters League wouldn't 
even make the issue a priority during the war with Iraq. 
Draft-age college men did not organize anti-draft groups 
in their schools during the war, much less sustain them after the war. 
Anti-draft work seems to have been a very minor part of college antiwar
activism.

The draft and registration are not priorities for draft-age college
men, who were the first to organize against the Vietnam draft and the
return to registration in 1980. Why should the issue be a priority for
feminist women, when it's not even a priority for draft-age men? 

The draft has very little relevance to practical politics in 1992.
-- 
_________________________________
Steve Homer  shomer@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:1827 talk.rape:2513
From: Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,talk.rape
Subject: Urgent (30-Sep) Request for Camille Paglia Statements About Rape
Date: 30 Sep 1992 20:29:39 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: jym@remarque.berkeley.edu

=o= I'm trying to collect some Camille Paglia statements about
rape, and I need them by today (30-Sep-1992).  If you know of a
reference for such statements, please email them to me:

                    <jym@mica.berkeley.edu>

=o= Why?  Well, it's like this.  A popular Bay Area morning
radio show is having Paglia as a guest tomorrow.  A friend of
mine, cartoonist Nina Paley, was a guest on this same show
yesterday morning.

=o= The topic of Paglia came up, and Nina brought up Paglia's
statements about rape, from Paglia's book, _Sexual_Personae_
(which Nina happened to have with her).  (Nina kicked butt on
the topic, and on sexism in the comics industry, by the way.)

=o= The host of the show flipped through the book and found
one or two anti-rape statements and suggested that Nina was
taking things out of context.  And in today's show he mentioned
that he'd gotten the book himself and couldn't find what Nina
had said anywhere in the book!

=o= The host may repeat this tomorrow, and Nina is considering
showing up in the studio audience for tomorrow's show in case
she may need to make a rebuttal.

=o= As I recall it, Paglia's book (minireview:  all sizzle no
steak, that managed to divert criticism of its lack of substance
by pointing to a purported lack of substance within feminism)
did in fact say a few things that would excuse rapists.  As the
book is anti-feminist, Paglia was thrust into the male-dominated
limelight.

=o= But as the limelight waned, Paglia presumably figured she
could extend her 15 minutes of fame by saying *more* about rape,
and started making explicit statements excusing "date rapists."
I'm looking for sources of *this* material.
    Thanks in advance,
    <_Jym_>
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 23:13:45 -0400 
From: David O Hunt <bluelobster+@CMU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Sexy clothing encourage rape?
	<1992Sep30.191149.8692@leland.Stanford.EDU>

farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>This whole discussion seems silly to me.  Any clothing can be sexy to
>someone.  For example, those spandex shorts bikers wear.  Now, I
>happen to find them incredibly sexy, and tend to ogle bikers at
>traffic lights.  Should a biker (wearing shorts that are for biking)
>be required to worry about my libido as s/he is biking?

No, and the "she was dressed provocatively" excuse does not (and
should not) hold in court.

I would like to add something, however.  While one (mainly women, 
though by no means should men ignore this) can wear anything they
wish (within the law, of course :), there should be an awareness of
the effect of certain types of clothing.

To use your biker wearing spandex example:  No, they shouldn't
fear wearing such clothing.  On the other hand, they _should_ be 
aware that such clothing _is_ revealing and therefore they may be
ogled.

The same goes for a tight mini, fishnet stockings, a halter top, and
stiletto heeled shoes.  If a woman wants to wear such clothing, then
by all means do so.  Yet she should be aware that most men (myself
included) find such apparel very..."stimulating" (ahem :) and that
they will be looked at.  Just as, when I wear workout clothes which
include fairly tight shorts, I expect that women _may_ look at me.

I personally don't mind if women look at me (I'm flattered, actually).
And IMHO women shouldn't mind if men look at them, especially if
they dress in a manner that they _know_ will attract attention.

But dress does not mean an invitation for anything, and males and
females should not interpret it as such...



David Hunt - Graduate Slave |     My mind is my own.      | Towards both a
Mechanical Engineering      | So are my ideas & opinions. | Palestinian and
Carnegie Mellon University  | <<<Use Golden Rule v2.0>>>  | Jewish homeland!
====T=H=E=R=E===I=S===N=O===G=O=D=========T=H=E=R=E===I=S===N=O===G=O=D=====
Email:  bluelobster+@cmu.edu    Working towards my "Piled Higher and Deeper"

"Out there is a fortune waiting to be had; do you think I'd let it go you're
mad - you got another think coming!" -- Judas Priest
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:1767 soc.men:17077
From: walkerr@yaya.WPI.EDU (Robert A Walker)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Why put ruffles on condoms?
Date: 29 Sep 1992 19:41:48 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
NNTP-Posting-Host: yaya.wpi.edu


>>The ribs are for idiots like me who bought them once and got a "well i can't 
>>feel a difference".  One major difference i did notice was that it felt like
>>i was wearing a sock.
>
>I've always wondered.... Just what does it feel like wearing a sock???

Well when you have to ask "is it in yet?"  there is something wrong like 
ribs make the rubber thicker which makes it feel like a sock, a small sock.
Mutual pleasure,  for the woman its the same but for the guy it isn't 
anything but a workout.  



Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: Violent Di Batters Charles
Keywords: Poor Little Princess!
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 18:00:53 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.132202.142@news.nd.edu> slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:
>
>The National Enquirer?  Lady Colin Campbell?  Come on, Robert, you've got 
>to be joking.......
>

Why? Actually, the "National Enquirer" has gotten pretty careful about
checking out the facts before reporting a story, since they lost some
big libel suits in the 1970s. (This does not guarantee that a story is
true, of course, only that people have been quoted accurately).

Why do you disbelieve this? Is is because sweet little women never
belittle their husbands to test their manhood?


-- 
  
        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: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: childcare (was Re: Bias in Academia?)
Date: 2 Oct 92 15:34:04
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1acoe1INNg8n@agate.berkeley.edu>
	<1992Oct1.082852.294@news.wesleyan.edu>
	<1992Oct2.205201.7322@ils.nwu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: lynch@ils.nwu.edu's message of Fri, 2 Oct 1992 20:52:01 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.205201.7322@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>While you make valid points, there is a point where one simply says enough is
>enough.  Having children has its burdens (eg financial) as well as its joys (eg
>emotional satisfaction).  Putting the financial burden on a taxpayer (who is
>already under-writing the education) for the daycare of a child that a parent
>chose to have (gross generalization, mea culpa) so that the parent can then
>choose to work instead of taking care of the child.

>I'm sorry, but it seems to me that if you choose to have a child, you take the
>responsibility that goes with it.  Asking the taxpayer to pay for daycare so
>you can evade this responsibility and go back to work isn't right, IMO.

>I'm perfectly willing to pay for the education of a child.
>If the parents can't afford daycare so they can go to work, they can take the
>responsibility to have the child seriously enough to stay home, or they can
>choose a career instead, but I don't want to pay for it.

While this is nice in principle, unfortunately reality intrudes.  If the
parent does not work, and therefore is not able to support themselves
and the child, they may well end up on welfare, and you (the taxpayer)
are going to get to support them *even more*.  While I can't say for
sure, as I have not studied the costs involved, it seems to me that the
cost of contributing to daycare would be significantly less than the
cost of supporting an adult and a child.  Of course, it may be that you
advocate abolishing welfare as well, in which case this may not be a
problem.  Of course, then the parent will probably have to get rid of
the child, either by killing it, in which case you will be supporting
them in a prison, or putting it up for adoption.  If the adoption
doesn't happen (as it often doesn't), then I'm not sure what happens to
the child, but I suspect it ends up in foster care, which is also
government (and therefore taxpayer) subsidized.

Yes, people "shouldn't" have children if they can't afford them, but
they *do*.

Personally, I think multi-adult families are the best solution.  Then,
more than one adult can work (which seems to be necessary these days)
while one or more others can stay home with the children.

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
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:1839 soc.men:17173
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Choice for men: moving beyond anti-feminism
Date: 1 Oct 1992 00:47:35 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

walkerr@yaya.WPI.EDU (Robert A Walker) writes:

>Well, if you knew who you were having sex with, ie could stay with one person,
>and not cheat on them and wait quite sometime before hopping in the hay with 
>them, then there is nothing to worry about, If there is some doubt, then
>defianately use a condom, but if you want to use a condom because you don't
>know were your partner has been then you don't trust/know them enough to 
>be having sex with them.

But how can you ever be *absolutely* sure "where your partner has been"?

							--  Michal
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Women as Victims (was:_Backlash_ ( Sort of ))
Date: 2 Oct 92 21:01:47 GMT
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences

In article <1992Oct1.202746.23453@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>In article <ZEN.92Sep29160051@death.corp.sun.com> zen@death.corp.sun.com (d) writes:
>>
>>  I think women, as a class, *are* victims to the male power structure.
>>Not that they are all bludgeoned everyday by concious male actions, but
>>what is being a victim?  It's someone who is harmed by some attack or
>>action from another(s).  You (generic you) split hairs with this and the
>>rest of your points, by arguing with the extremists, saying you don't
>>agree, and then don't *do* anything to help, saying that you don't agree
>>with the cause.  Call yourself a "moderate feminist" or something, or
>>call yourself a woman hater, but *do* something to help balance the
>>power, to shift things to equality, which you profess to espouse.
>>
>Come off it. Now that "all are equal" but women are "more equal than men"
>(having special preferences, special legal rights, etc), it's men who
>are being victimized far more often by the power structure, which will
>invariably bend over backwards to accomodate any demand that is labelled
>as "feminist."
>
>If you want to *do* something, help the balance of power (at least here
>in North America) swing back away from the position that calls itself
>"feminist," back in the direction of equality of REAL power for women
>and men.

I don't think "all are equal".
I certainly don't think women are "more equal than men".

While I'm sure you can produce as many specific examples of injustices this way
as there are examples available of injustices the other way, do you seriously
believe that the system is now, in general, weighted against men?

What specifically so you want done in the name of REAL equality?

Is there specific legislation you want altered/struck down/proposed?

I know you've posted several times, and these posts may well contain the exact
info I am asking for, I don't remember what your "platform" is.  Could you
post it all in one piece?

I suspect that you might find yourself more in agreement with the people you
are arguing with than you suspect.  There *are* radical feminists out there.
There *are* cases of bending over backwards.  But I suspect that both of you
agree on specific things you want done.  You, Shaeffer seem to be picking
arguments with moderates over the positions espoused by radicals, and you, zen,
are arguing with him instead of asking what he wants done.

Hey, maybe it's time alt.feminism tries to put together a platform we can
agree on.
Let's face it, if *WE* can agree on a few basic things, it might be worth
doing.
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:1682 soc.men:16983
From: ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic)
Subject: Worn and Bleeding.
Organization: TRW Financial Systems
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 12:29:51 GMT

The last-name vs. first-name thing.
This is still going on?

Jesus.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Women as Victims (was:_Backlash_ ( Sort of ))
Organization: LLNL
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 01:48:12 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.220630.26446@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.045719.14085@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
@ In article <1992Oct3.183342.26778@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
@ 
@ >For starters,
@ >   -End preferences and quotas for women in hiring and promotions
@ 
@ 	Like what?
@ 
@ 	Affirmative action is designed to correct known biases, such
@ as those against woman and black people in some quarters. I'm well
@ aware that it is sometimes considered "reverse discrimination", a
@ charge that may well have merit. But there _has_ been a lot of
@ anti-woman stereotyping in decades past, if you are not so blind as to
@ be aware of that.

>Men and women simply make different career choices, that's a fact. Even

	Are you saying that women are all natural-born wimps?

	What is your opinion on Carol Tavris's work? Or is she
irrelevant because her work disagrees with your preconceptions?

>when the law has *nothing* to do with it. To penalize more qualified
>men to benefit certain lesser-qualified women to "gender equalize" 
>certain fields is blatant discrimination. 

	Give me a break. You seem _obsessed_ with the idea that any
attempt to help disadvantaged people is "reverse discrimination".

>It is the assumption that "two wrongs make a right."

	But one wrong can cancel out the other one, get it? :-)

>(Yes, the "power structure IS clearly scared shitless of looking like
>"Male Chauvinist Pigs", and will bend over backwards to feminist demands,
>reasonable or not).
 
@ >   -End prosecutions for vague "harassment" that in fact are plain-out
@ >    censorship of 'things feminists don't like' (or, alternately, give
@ >    men the SAME power)
@ 
@ 	Like...
>The new MacKinnon-proposed legal agenda.

@ >   -End the feminist assault on the first amendment.
@ 
@ 	Like...
>Dworkin, MacKinnon, NOW, "Women Against Pornography," etc.

	The Dworkinite position has gotten _lots_ of feminist criticism.

	You should read Betty Friedan or Susie Bright sometime. Or ask
on soc.feminism.