HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: On Responsible Consumerism
Date: 11 Oct 92 18:48:53 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <7OCT199208050756@deimos.ucc.umass.edu> sfadden@deimos.ucc.umass.edu (Steve Fadden) writes:
>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...

An appeal to warm fuzzy memories of childhood.

>      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

Please explain it to me. I can relate to the textual imagery, and as
far as my childhood goes, it is accurate enough.

>                                                               , 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.

Your reaction seems irrational to me, but you are probably better off
reducing the amount of refined sugar in your diets.
 
[...]
>
>Regards,
>
>- Steve
>: Steve Fadden                                 sfadden@ucsvax.ucc.umass.edu :

Rich

payner@netcom.com
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: A Belicose psychoslut from hell
Date: 16 Oct 92 19:00:32 GMT
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <7775@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> Your Mother writes:
>isar@ac.dal.ca (Isabel R.) writes:
>
>>Get a clue, people.  I have the right to be assertive about my views and
>>to flame inanities w/out being considered a belicose psychoslut from hell.
>>If you want us to be nice, start by showing some respect for our views.
>>Sheesh... and they wonder why there is so much racial tension in America...
 
>Sorry, but Rini doesn't agree.  YOU may have that right, but she says that
>I don't.  Then again I'm a man.  Oops!  I'm "male" not a "man". 

Al, I hereby do grant you the right to post anything you damn please.

Boy, good thing we cleared that up.

(BTW, Al, once again, your post is idiotic and rude.)

rini
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: garry@rice.edu (Garry C. King)
Subject: Re: Why I Am a Feminist
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: Rice University
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 22:45:16 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.051154.6250@panix.com>, gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
wrote:

> As I see it, feminism is a project with three aspects.
> 
> First, it seeks to secure equality for women.  As I share
> with classical liberals the ideal of political and social
> equality, I am a feminist for this.

Why not call yourself a classical liberal then ?
Parochialism is seldom a virtue.
 
> Second, it seeks to enhance the choices and opportunities
> of women.  As there are many women whom I love, I am a 
> feminist for this. 

This would appear to be the same as your first point, or by "enhance" do
you mean obtain preferential treatment for ?
The other obvious question is:  are there no men you love ? 
or, why are their choices and opportunities less important to you ?
I feel a warm, fuzzy protective impulse emanating from this one.  That's
nice, and most of us are trained to protect any girlies in the vicinity,
but it's pretty patriarchal, to coin a phrase, no ?
 
> Third, it seeks to increase the scope and the freedom of
> the feminine in both men and women.  As I respect and
> delight in the feminine, both in myself and others, I am
> a feminist for this.

Whatever the "feminine" is (let me guess: the nice things ?).  So you seem
to like having a label.  That's fine, but why one as literally exclusive as
"feminist" ?

> That some see feminism as part of a sour, sterile battle 
> between interest groups is sad.  One can only hope they 
> will decide to emerge from behind their barricades. 

Until we all bend to your will, contention between interest groups is the
only way to go.  It can be sour, dull and sterile, or vigorous, challenging
and fun.
I've seen enough logical gymnastics in this newsgroup to keep me quietly
amused for days.  I particularly like the reference to barricades.  You'll
have to forgive me, but I'd have thought that you were one of the prima
barricadistas.   

> A world awaits.
  
Ah yes, but whose world ?  

Garry.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Who speaks for feminism?
From: RGINZBERG@eagle.wesleyan.edu (Ruth Ginzberg)
Date: 10 Oct 92 03:10:02 EDT
Distribution: world
Organization: Philosophy Dept., Wesleyan University
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20In-Reply-To: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com's message of Fri, 9 Oct 1992 22:44:14 GMTLines: 19

I.  Who's A Real ... ?

The question, "Who's a *real* feminist?" is exceeded in discussion only by the
question, "Who's a *real* Jew?"  The latter never prevented one whit of
anti-Semitism, & the former never prevented one whit of misogyny.  Focusing
attention on this sort of question is divisive, diversionary, and itself a
tactic of oppression.


II.  alt.?huh?

Why is this newsgroup named "alt.feminism"?  It seems more like
"alt.Muffy.bashing" to me.  Muffy: you ought to consider yourself complemented; 
you draw more commentary than most authors see in their lifetimes.  It means
people take you seriously.

------------------------
Ruth Ginzberg <rginzberg@eagle.wesleyan.edu>
Philosophy Department;Wesleyan University;USA
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel)
Subject: Re: Porno and beauty standards (Was Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy...)
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 16:09:53 GMT

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:

>And lets not forget Roseanne Barr (sp?). 

Oh, *please*, let's forget her.

Regards,
       H. Biesel
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Bunnies and Playboy
Date: 10 Oct 92 20:07:11 GMT
Reply-To: tjw+@pitt.edu
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Oct10.173809.25862@midway.uchicago.edu>, mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:

> In article <1992Oct10.045854.23938@netcom.com> 

> 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.  

> That's not the best message, IMO.  

It certainly isn't.  However, Playboy does not just feature picutures of
"Bunnies", which haven't existed for about 10 years, by the way.

They have done pictorals of older women (some in their 50s), older women and
younger men, heavy women, and even paraplegics.

Note that they were afraid to do the photos of the paraplegics because they
felt that some people (not necessarily feminists) would see that as
exploiting a poor helpless "girl".  It was only when the young woman in
question insisted that she was a "sexual being" and wanted to show that
just because one is a paraplegic, one doesn't give up an interest in being
sexy and in sex, that they decided to do the photo shoot.

The centerfold is usually a young woman (by 1960's standards, she would be a
child).  Perhaps these women are geared toward young college men.  They do
tend to show more young women than old.  This may be for marketing reasons.
But they do not exclude other types of women.

However, Playboy never says "you must be young, thin, and blonde to be
sexy".  I think if we wrote them, they would probably be happy to respond
to this discussion.  It might be interesting to try.


> I don't even remember *what* Gordon said -- seemed like a long time ago.
> I don't really know what bugs him.

I'm sure Gordon will tell us if he wants to!  The cat's not got his tongue!

Terry "Patches, let go!  Owww!" 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: curdm@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Richard Mancuso)
Subject: Your views on Catholic Church or Sinead O'Connor
Organization: Educational Computing Network
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 20:00:22 GMT

Can I get a feminist view of the impact of the Catholic Church on women. 
Also, does anybody have any thoughts about Sinead O'Connor ripping up a
picture of the pope and proclaiming "Fight your real enemy" ?

Thanks!

Richard Mancuso
Eastern Illinois University
E-Mail: curdm@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Please Tell me about the Male Gaze
Date: 9 Oct 92 17:53:43 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1b347tINN9g9@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, ah897@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Robert Lai) writes:

> I am taking a feminist theatre class, and there was a mention of
> a phenoMENon called the "male gaze".  Is this necessarily
> when a male looks at a woman?  Is this "male gaze" the reason
> for breast implants, cosmetic sales, plastic surgery?

Ask your male dog,cat,gerbil and see what they say.  They're "male" after all
so they should exhibit this "male gaze" when they look at a womYn. ;-)

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: abbst@vms.cis.pitt.edu (Al)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: My School's Sleaziest Scoundrel
Date: 13 Oct 92 20:59:16 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

>Yes I can see how the Binary Thinking work.  Since I bitched against your
>*tactic* you assume that I disagree with your position.  Too bad.  Well,
>at least you're having a good time.

OK Rini!  But you missed your chance.  I figured you would take the opportunity
to do more than "bitch" (your word).  Tell me about your position.  In fact,
why don't you take the original posting and take it line by line.  You
can tell all of us (since you will not use e-mail) exactly where you stand!

Al
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:2653 alt.sex:33219
From: rstevew@deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Censorship
Date: 14 Oct 92 15:28:43 GMT
Organization: The Armory

In article <MUFFY.92Oct7070031@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.071509.17723@nwnexus.WA.COM> elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) writes:
>> In other words, feminists don't like gay men 'cause gay men can
>> enjoy themselves without feminists.  :-)
>
>Imagine my surprise.  I didn't know I didn't like gay men.  In fact, I
>could have sworn that I liked some of them (most of the ones I know)
>very much.  And I imagined that I had a great time at the gay fandom
>party (all men but for me and one other woman) at WorldCon.  And my
>favorite sex scene in a mainstream movie is the two men in "My Beautiful
>Laundrette." Oh, well.  I *do* like my gay friends and I am a feminist.
>How confusing.
>Muffy
----------------
Oh Muffy, don't be a butthead. Elf was only para-phrasing a butthead.
Don't tell me that you plight your troth with Dworkin and McKinnon!
- Steve

-- 
* Richard STEVEn Walz   rstevew@deeptht.armory.com   (408) 429-1200  *
* 515 Maple Street #1   * Without safe and free abortion women are   *
* Santa Cruz, CA 95060    organ-surrogates to unwanted parasites.*   *
* Real Men would never accept organ-slavery and will protect Women.  *
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: MacKinnon, Playboy,...
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 17:29:31 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.160432.12026@unixg.ubc.ca> schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.093136.4738@leland.Stanford.EDU>
>farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>
>>So, what the hell is going on?  If rape is happening at these rates,
>>something is terribly wrong with our society.  How do we stop this
>>violence?
>
>Certainly not by banning pornography!  If we're going to fund
>sociologists with our taxes, we might as well listen to what they
>say, after all.

We fund artists and politicians with our taxes, you will have a hard 
time proving thr value of listening to either. That they are funded with 
our taxes has no bearing upon whether or not they should be listened to.

Furthermore, sociology is not a science, they have no causal understanding
of social interaction, they have never predicted a social event, and what
social workers seem to do is control people by controlling the funding.
It works, but there is nothing 'social' about it.

If you can give even a poor reason (that they recive public funds is a
non-reason IMHO) why they should be listened to, I would be surprised.
Please, feel free to surprise me.
 
>In my opinion, urban decay and inner-city poverty are mainly the
>cause of predatory rape.  And our hopelessly repressed, puritanical,
>guilt-ridden approach to sex is largely responsible for acquaintance
>rape.

These will be solved by education and eliminating PC and religious agendas,
The education system has long been dead, they cannot even teach the 3
r's all graduates. And PC and religious powers (both intolerant) are
gaining power. There is not a damn thing sociologists can do about the
problems. 
 
>If you can do something about these, put your name on the presidential
>ballot!
>
>-S. Schultz

Rich

payner@netcom.com
From: agodwin@acorn.co.uk (Adrian Godwin)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: CB Radio (was Re: Mace, Pepperguard, etc.)
Date: 7 Oct 92 11:18:03 GMT
Organization: Acorn Computers Ltd, Cambridge, UK

In article <pschleck.718391209@cwis> pschleck@cwis.unomaha.edu (Paul W Schleck KD3FU) writes:
>
>Your best bet, thought expensive, is cellular phone.  I'd recommend one
>of their "evening" calling plans for reduced rates (remember, you are
>paying for both calls made and calls received).
>

I can't agree with that. Less people may listen to cellular phone
conversations, but if anyone does it as a fulltime occupation, they're
likely to be just the sort of weirdo who'd make a point of searching out
the isolated woman they identify.
A potential rapist / mugger is hardly likely to be put off by the 
possibility of legal action due to illegal listening !

A company in the UK is advertising a cut-down cellphone (emergency
services only) as especially suitable for people who feel threatened
by having to walk for help if their car breaks down.
This is after a couple of well-publicised attacks on lone women stranded
on motorways (freeways).

It seems to me to be totally insane to announce your whereabouts for
any local eavesdropper to hear! 
If you must use radio communications of any kind, make sure it's SECURE.


>I'm kind of biased on the subject, but I recommend to anyone who wants
>some communications security and can't afford a cellular phone to
>consider becoming a "ham" (amateur radio operator).  The service offers
>much better communication bands and better range.  Hams are also able to
>provide "phone patches" which are automated base-stations that will
>allow you to make a telephone call via radio using touch-tones.  The
>amateur service is also populated with a much higher class of
>individuals (this also means that they are more traditional - read
>sexist - but I see this as more of a stimulating challenge than a
>drawback :-).

Ham stuff can be intellectually interesting and/or fun. I don't think
I'd want to rely on local listeners to raise the alarm for me in an
emergency. And I certainly wouldn't want to raise a 'phone patch
even if they existed in this country, which they don't) while evading
a mugger.

-adrian

-- 
Adrian Godwin : agodwin@acorn.co.uk : adrian@fangorn.demon.co.uk : g7hwn@gb7khw
ObDisclaimer  : I believe this rubbish .. don't imagine that anyone else does.
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Playboy
Date: 8 Oct 92 22:14:30 GMT
Reply-To: tjw+@pitt.edu
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

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

>>I most strongly diasagree, this simply is -not- true.

> It simply *is* true.

>>Please put some flesh on this claim (:^), Playboy is readily available, 
>>show me what context you claim is "hatred and contempt for sexuality".

> All the women in Playboy look very much alike.  They ignore and,
> indeed, seem to wish to deny, the fact that women who don't look like
> that can still be sexy, interested in sex, etc.  

That's not true for me!  I've seen pictorials on various women.  Older women.
Younger women.  Heavy women.  Smart women.  They didn't look alike to me.
Perhaps you look at women differently that I do, though.  In what ways do
you see the women as being alike?

> In many of the stories
> in Playboy women are portrayed as pretty much constantly ready for sex -
> there is no need to do anything to arouse them.  

Which stories?  This sounds more true of the "Penthouse Forum".  I find the
fiction in Playboy to not be boring.  I find their "news" articles far more
interesting.


> Finally, just look at how sex is viewed in general.  It's something to
> be done in secret - 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?

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
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:2244 soc.men:17482 soc.women:17492
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Double Standards for Insensitivity
Date: 8 Oct 92 23:22:32 GMT
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

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).

I certainly hope that *that* clears all of this confusion up!

Terry
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 23:41:45 GMT
Reply-To: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena, CA

barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>>Frankly, no. Most of my viewpoints are hard for most people to understand.
>	But, Dave, surely _you_ are responsible for this?

The responsibility for understanding something rests with the person
trying to understand it. The only exception is being a student, then
(and only then) the TEACHER is responsible.

>	Get a clue: either there's something defective about your
>viewpoint, or something defective about your attempts to explain it.

Individual criticisms of a system, incapacity to operate it, inability
to understand it, or dissatisfaction with it should not be confused with 
any shortcoming of the system itself.

But you might be right about that latter point. It's a toss up whether
I'm not making myself clear or people are unable (or unwilling) to 
understand.
-- 
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov       dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov         ...usc!elroy!dxh

Show me a person who really knows what 'good' is, and I will show you that 
the person almost never uses the word.
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:2510 soc.men:17669
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Clinton Gore position on women
Date: 13 Oct 92 18:58:17 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

#I trust that you didn't miss that this said deadbeat PARENTS.  

%Here we see the feminist solution for men's oppression:
%change the name or the oppression, but leave the situation as is.
%MacKinnon and Rini are pretty good in using the technique....

In article <1992Oct13.000039.19835@midway.uchicago.edu> 
mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>...while, Hillel, on the other hand, specializes in misrepresentation.
>myself from typing all kinds of nasty expletives.  You just tell
>me, why don't you, where I even remotely suggested that we should
>leave the situation as is.  You just tell me where I have ever

You suggested that the phrase "deadbeat PARENTS" has any meaning when
the no choice for men && the discrimination against men in the divorce 
systems cause a situation where *most* of those "deadbeat PARENTS" (and all 
those who have a good reason to be deadbeat, in *my* opinion), are men.

%Demanding choice for women is feminists' way to demand equality,
%and demand no choice for men is just another feminists' way to 
%demand equality.  You saw these two in the same article and it 
%did not bother you, but my response did bother you.

>Seeing those two in the same article certainly did not *suprise* me, no.

I did not say surprise, I said bother.

>I noted your response because you want off on the phrase "dead beat dads".
>Then I looked at the original post and saw "dead beat parents".  I 
>thought it was worth getting straight.   

I care about the message, not about the exact words you use.
Debating the wording is just a way not to talk about the message

>(In fact, I was expecting some
>diatribe about how dead beat 'parents' was a thin viel covering a
>sexist and unjust reality -- when it was missing, *that* surprised me.)

The meaning is pretty clear, and I don't care that much about the
exact wording; the meaning is much more important, in *my* opinion.

>rini

Hillel                                         gazit@cs.duke.edu

"Hey, why is it that when _she_ gets angry and bitter it's a necessary
stage in feminist development, but when _he_ gets angry and bitter he's
an insensitive oppressing asshole?"  --  Louis Marco