HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: Choice?
Keywords: abortion, pornography
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 17:04:41 GMT

quilty@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Humberto Humbertoldi) writes:

>	BTW, rini, I just LOVE a.sprinkle from interviews I've read,
>but haven't seen her or her film(s).  If you feel like talking about
>the film any further on this group, I would hang on every word. 

Sure, I can do a quickie review.  :)

The film was called The Sluts and Goddess Video Workshop.  It's not
exactly what I would call porn, although it does contain explicit
imagery.  I totally understand the useage of the term "post-porn" for
her stuff.  

The movie opens with Annie center stage.  She is dressed in a
conservatively cut, navy blue dress, with a lovely beehive hairdo.
(She reminds me of the woman who used to do Romper Room.)  She
speaks in very calm terms as she opens this "self-help workshop"
designed to help bring out the slut and goddess in every woman.

Quickly, it becomes apparent that she is making a tremendous farce
of the typical new-age Woman self-help video.  (She talks about
the importance of a nice facial, and the proper make-up, etc.)
She introduces six women who are our "transcendental guides" in this
spiritual journey.  (There are no men in the movie, btw.)

The basic format of the movie stays fairly constant.  Annie's school
teacherish, innocent image is superimposed on the foreground of the
movie, highlighted by a neon pink aura.  She casually strolls back
and forth as she lectures.  Behind her cut-out image, our Guides, 
and occasionally Annie herself, demostrate the "paths of exploration"
which are the subject of her talk.  These "paths" include meditation,
orgasmic breathing, "sexercises", and, of course, sex itself...  
(She urges, "Come 'on!  Grab some friends and follow along with us!")

Annie excels at bringing the taboo into the open, making it okay, and
then laughing at it.  Like when she talks about choosing a "slut name"
she says something like "choose something that refers to your favorite
body part.  Like 'Lana Legs', or 'Betty Boobs'."  (She has a million
examples that are better than those, but I've forgotten them.)  
Personally, I find this very refreshing.  She makes me laugh at the
sex industry.  ("Make some porn yourself.  You'll find that you can
do it better than the professionals....")   In the light of day that
Annie casts, I think most people would agree that the "dark and dirty
business" as it stands today is really quite silly.  Very silly.

Anyway, it was a real pleasure and think the whole audience got a 
big kick out of it.  I think a couple people expected it to be more
like a "real" porn movie, but that's just my guess.  I think I can
say that I really did learn something from it too, so it was more
than just a farcical laugh.

I have not seen Annie in person, but a couple of my friend saw her
and Karen Finley to a performance thing in Chicago not too long ago,
and they said it was wonderful.

rini
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.folklore.urban
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: MacKinnon Suffers Snuff Harassment (was: Feminists, Radical and Otherwise)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 20:04:36 GMT

thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:

: MacKinnon's decision to waste her time.  She may very well be disappointed
: with the lack of evidence she finds.  I fully expect her to be.  But
: I fail to see what harm it does.  It could be the best debunking
: of the myth if one of its most famous proponents were to come forward
: and admit that there's no evidence that there's a snuff film industry
: killing dozens of women a year for prurient interest.  

Hah! The Brooklyn Bridge will be destroyed by a glacier before she makes
such an statement. She would, instead, just quietly drop the claim, and
skirt around any questions on the subject.

: >: (Of course, the reason I dropped my subscription to SI was that the 
: >: rag shows the bias Sheaffer here illustrates.  It's easy, fun,
: >: intellectually "pretty", and, most importantly, *effective* (IMO) 
: >: to debunk paranormal (and other mythological) claims respectfully 
: >: and scientifically. It was mildly irritating (IMO) to see them 
: >: stoop to condescension and sneers.) 
: >
: >It is better than believing them blindly and without question. That is
: >often called religious dogma or "faith". 
: 
: But there's a happy medium in between.

I agree. That is where most people should be. It is called "healthy
scepticism."

Bill
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women,soc.men
From: johnston@fys.ruu.nl (Helen Johnston)
Subject: Re: *Mother* MacDunaugh?! *FAINT*
Organization: Physics Department, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 08:50:59 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.192410.2352@speedy.aero.org> nadel@attatash.aero.org (Miriam Nadel) writes:
>In article <1992Nov13.091322.4300@fys.ruu.nl> johnston@fys.ruu.nl (Helen Johnston) writes:
>>In fact, I think it highly unlikely that the present Pope will ever
>>allow women anywhere near the priesthood; he's likely to go for married
>>(male) priests several aeons before he'll even think of women, no
>>matter what the priest shortage. 
>
>This is trivially true as there are already married male Catholic priests.
>Usually as a result of a priest from another denomination (e.g. Eastern
>Orthodox, Anglican, or one of the others the Catholic church accepts as
>legitimate) converting to Roman Catholicism.  They're not allowed to
>remarry if their wife dies, but that's another matter.
>
And nor are they a self-perpetuating part of Catholicism; once that
priest dies, his successor can't claim "right of marriage"! It will be
interesting to see what happens if this breakaway group of Anglicans who
want to join the Catholic church is allowed to join; will they be
allowed to keep married priests, or will Rome insist on celibacy?

-- 
Helen Johnston       | Astronomye is an harde thynge and yvel forto knowe.
johnston@fys.ruu.nl  |      -- William Langland, Piers the Plowman
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Child Support
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 22:53:18 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.191143.20660@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu (Devjani Mishra) writes:
>>>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>
>>>> Are you willing to enact a law that says when a woman has a baby
>>>> "without the father's help," that we'll flip a coin to select who
>>>> will be the custodial parent?  ...
>>>
>>>Is this a serious question?  I think custody needs to be decided on a
>>>case-by-case basis.  Formulas fail.  ...
>>
>>Yes, it's serious.  When both parents are equally fit and both
>>equally want to raise the child, what is your default?
>
>... Why not joint custody in the case where they've
>both expressed the desire to be parents?

That sounds fine to me.

Now, where does the child reside?

What if the parents live 3000 miles apart?

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu (Devjani Mishra)
Subject: Re: Has the Fight changed before my very eyes?
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: Yale University
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 02:16:04 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.003754.2331@ils.nwu.edu>, lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard
Lynch) wrote:
> 
> In article <1992Nov15.135144.2075@gmuvax2.gmu.edu> mpon@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (Malcolm Pon) writes:
> 
>    [self-description/credentials]
> 
> >Lately, perhaps alerted to it by _Backlash_ (Faludi), I've been seeing a
> >lot of new arguments that for some reason we don't need to actively
> >pursue feminism, for instance, because apparently all its goals have
> >been fulfilled and those of us who continue are just nuts who are
> >overcompensating.  We are told that the things we used as indicators
> >years ago, indicators of our plight and of how bad it had gotten are now
> >an indication of our new freedoms.
> 
> I think it would be more correct to say that the nature of the work to be done
> has changed.  Feminism is no longer the underdog.  The ideal of equality for
> women is far more universally accepted.  Feminists need to change tactics to

Whoa, there.  When you say "universally accepted", I hope you're
restricting your "universe" to just the US (and maybe some parts of
Europe).  Worldwide, women are generally looking at the the same structures
that have lasted thousands of years - forced prostitution, dowry deaths,
lack of citizenship and all the rest.  Equality is nowhere near
"universally accepted".

       /-                   Devjani Mishra, Yale University
      /   /                 misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu
  ___/  _  _   _  ___       diva@minerva.cs.yale.edu    
 /  /   /   | /  /  /
/__/_  /_   |/  /__/_       "There but for the grace of G-d go I".
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: twain@milton.u.washington.edu (Barbara Hlavin)
Subject: Re: sex in the good ol' days
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 20:46:44 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.005319.5313@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>Hey, rini, that advice to a bride was *so* wild I gotta wonder if it wasn't
>"A Modest Propsal"?


Oh, exactly ... it was very obviously meant to be satirical.  

What's *really* funny about it is Robert Shaeffer's utterly predictable 
response that it's a Politically Correct Feminist-Lesbian-Man-Hating 
CONSPIRACY!   

--Barbara, still laughing
From: schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: liberal men are a hot item?
Date: 17 Nov 1992 15:22:37 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

In article <1992Nov15.173158.8713@midway.uchicago.edu>
mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>>In fact, your statistics also imply that 'conservative women are a hot 
>>item,' but I don't see you pushing that idea here.  
>
>Oh, sorry.  Equal time and all that.  Okay:  conservative women are
>a hot item!!!  There are lot's of men out there that want conservative
>women!!  If you want to cook, clean, and do the dishes, you've got a
>good chance of getting married!!!

Well if you believe that conservative women are hot and liberal
women are cold, because conservative women do dishes etc., I
don't quite know what to say (I wasn't asking for equal time, but
arguing by contrast, and this and the other reversals were
supposed to sound silly).

I don't think women are 'chosen' on this basis anywhere near often
enough to justify the blanket statement, or that conflicts about
domestic chores aren't easily resolved most of the time.

-S. Schultz
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: sex in the good ol' days
Date: 16 Nov 92 20:23:44 GMT
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:

>    Dear Rini, have you actually *seen* proof that this was written in
>    1894? 

Darling Robert, no I haven't.

>    Or is it a modern, Politically Correct fraud,
>    cooked up to delight the Faithful and confound the Enemy, like the
>    fraudulent "Speech of Cheif Seattle" that is so widsepread in the
>    ecology movement?

Gosh, I don't know.  It's been around the net for a while.  I picked
it up from alt.sex, where it was posted by a man whose posts are 
generally of the highest quality.  It didn't seem absurd enough for
me to question it.  After all, there was a religiously inspired
celibacy movement at that time in our country.

Granted, my access to primary historical documents is not great, but
I do know of two histories (one a book and the other a recent journal
article) which quote documents that are not dissimilar to the one
I posted here.  (It's true -- I generally have to accept that the
historians did not make up their sources.)  I can post the titles
of these secondary sources if you like.

>    Rini, this is NOT 19th-century language. This hoax is just another 
>    example of feminist Dirty Tricks. 

Now now -- if it was feminist Dirty Tricks, it would've been the MINISTER
speaking, not the minister's WIFE, right?  :-)

Besides -- my grandmother (who is still alive) was born the year that 
this peice was supposed to have been written.  It's not *that* old.
(We have plenty of writting in my family that has been preserved from
that time and it doesn't come across as Shakespearean or anything.
Even the turn of the century Quaker pamphlets I have at home do not 
sound foreign, and you know that Quakers are weird about language, 
saying "thee" and "thou" and all.)

But I'm no expert judge.  Maybe Kayembee will post some quotes from the 
material he has?  We could compare it then.  Will he be so generous?

rini

- So where did the Cheif Seattle quote come from? 
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 00:21:13 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.205935.17915@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>[on semi-nude calendars, etc.]
>
>>>What I'm saying is that it may not be very meaningful to compare
>>>a bikini calendar of women to a Chippendale's calendar of men.  
>>
>>Why or why not. 
>
>This was outlined in a very long post which preceeded this one.

Because one is sexist and one is not? I do not buy into this nonsense.
Talk about double standards, this is a great example.
 
>>>Maybe it would be *more* useful to compare a bikini calendar 
>>>of women to a calendar of bachelor men which listed their 
>>>incomes, assets, and number of credit cards.  
>>
>>Maybe it would be more useful to compare a bikini calender to a can 
>>of motor oil, but I doubt it.
>
>I doubt it too.  (Wow!  Agreement!)

Probably not, I just echoed your silly comments about the 'incomes,
assets, and number of credit cards' with another equally valid silly
comparison. Do we agree that both are silly invalid comparisons?
 
>>>*That's* what I mean when I say that sexism is a two-way street, but
>>>it necessarily doesn't operate in the same way to the different people.
>>
>>Is that not what feminists here claim is the problem with society?
>
>That it's sexist?  That it works in different way for different people?
>Yep.  That's *exactly* what feminists think the problem is.

So feminists then claim that a bikini calendar is sexist, but that a
Chippendales calendar is not. Is this not a double standard?
  
>>>Indeed, the very existence of "sexism" implies that there are double-
>>>standards.  
>>
>>So you defend the ones which might be to your advantage, even with
>>similar to identical situations. 
>
>No.  I don't defend double-standards.  I merely point out that they exist.

I'm glad to hear that.
 
>>>If the world was as full of Chippendale's calendars as it is full 
>>>of calendars of scantily clad women, I think it'd be silly to conclude
>>>that the sexism has now simply doubled.  
>>
>>Too bad, because it would indeed follow.
>
>How so, Rich?  That men and women are *both* held up to standards of 
>beauty in the same way?  

This is not the topic. The calendars are. If bikini calendars are sexist,
and suddenly there was an equal number of Chippendale's calendars, then the
amount of sexism here is not changed. I get it, since the Chippendale's
calendars are not sexist, the amount of sexism remains constant. Guess I
missed that, sorry.

>How is that sexist?  It may be not nice, but I fail to see how it is sexist.

So you feel that you are forced to try to look like a supermodel. Do you think
fat guys get dates easily? Or easier than fat gals?
 
>rini


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: liberal men are a hot item?
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 01:54:25 GMT

ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark) writes:
>mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:
>>sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
 
>Poor old
>Rob, like me, finds very few women have that tingle-up-the-spine feeling
>about him and yet oh so many find him to be a great friend. 

Gosh, poor old Rob.  I didn't know.  You guys must be close to share 
these intimacies. 

rini
From: muffy@anableps.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: liberal men are a hot item?
Date: 17 Nov 92 13:09:30
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<lgg7r8INN9l8@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>
	<MUFFY.92Nov16164828@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<1992Nov17.200353.28879@netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: anableps.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: payner@netcom.com's message of Tue, 17 Nov 1992 20:03:53 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.200353.28879@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <MUFFY.92Nov16164828@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>In article <lgg7r8INN9l8@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> falk@peregrine.Sun.COM (Ed Falk) writes:
>>>Can I move to your area?  The majority of the women I've gone out with
>>>have valued me for my ability to make money more than my liberal ways.
>>>The vast majority have wanted to quit work, move in with me and have
>>>me support them.  It gets old real fast.
>>You *live* in my area, so I'm afraid you can't move here.

>Muffy, you post from Berkeley, do you live there? I live in the South
>Bay, and Berkeley is far enough from here to not be a casual drive. I
>think Ed Falk is also in the South Bay (Milpitas or Mountain View for
>Sun). So he is not exactly in your area.

Actually, I live in SF.  My SO works at Sun, though, so he *is* in Ed's
"area" every day, and most of the people who are attracted to him also
live in the South Bay.

>The campus is beautiful, wish I could've gone to school there.

I don't.  In fact, I turned them down.

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
~Weavers' fingers flying on the loom/patterns shift too fast to be
 discerned/all these years of thinking/ended up like this/in front
 of all this beauty/understanding nothing~ - Bruce Cockburn
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.folklore.urban
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: MacKinnon Suffers Snuff Harassment (was: Feminists, Radical and Otherwise)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 20:58:45 GMT

mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:
: 
: What's interesting about this debate is that Robert Sheaffer writes
: for the _Skeptical Inquirer_.  I thought those folks *liked* to
: investigate things they suspected were false and *welcomed*
: any evidence to the contrary.  (??)

Certainly - how about presenting some evidence that is meaningful?
Then, we will listen.

: (Of course, the reason I dropped my subscription to SI was that the 
: rag shows the bias Sheaffer here illustrates.  It's easy, fun,
: intellectually "pretty", and, most importantly, *effective* (IMO) 
: to debunk paranormal (and other mythological) claims respectfully 
: and scientifically. It was mildly irritating (IMO) to see them 
: stoop to condescension and sneers.) 

It is better than believing them blindly and without question. That is
often called religious dogma or "faith". 

Bill
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell)
Subject: Re PC Again
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 14:56:07 GMT

Organization: Penn State University
From: <REA105@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject:    PC again




<REA105@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

     In response to Steve.  I am not arguing that telling people about their no
n-PC ways is bad.  I am saying that forcing PC is bad.
     

	I agree with you in general.  However it is my opinion that the
term "PC" is one perpetuated by some in the hopes of characteuring various
ideas in order to discredit/fight them.  It seems these days all you
have to do to discredit someone is call them "PC".   If this phenomenon
was around in the 60's Im sure someone would complain about Blacks being
"PC" by asking not to be called niggers.  I dont think "PC" aside from
the MANUFACTURED stereotype is anything more then people seeking deserved
respect by changing what they call themselves.  Im speaking in general of
course.





I have had teachers that have lowered grades just because I or my friends
did not use PC, in the way that they saw PC.  Of course there was no way to pro
ve it, but every one knows that, this was the case in certain circumstances.
     

	I cant reject or ACCEPT your argument without specifics.  How
	did you not use "PC"?  If there was no way to prove it, how
	does "every one know"?  What were the "certain circumstances"?


As far as asking.  I do that on an individual basis, but what I am complai
ning about id`s the fact that when you meet someone new, you can use terminolog
y that some in the specific group have told you to use, and get slapped for it.
     

	I think that is wrong.  I've heard stories like this myself.  However,
	I have many radical feminist coworkers and aquaintances.  In all the
	years I've known them I have NEVER got a bad reaction from any of them
	even the most contentious, by asking them what they prefer to be 
	called/treated and apologizing for any misunderstanding/ignorance
	about it first.


By the way,  how did you get my typing to appear in your article.  You did
 not retype it did you.  Later Steve.  Rea105


	I saved your post, edited it in emacs, and then reposted it.


Steve R
Newsgroups: alt.feminism