HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Choice for men: moving beyond anti-feminism
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 19:39:57 GMT

In article <BvE6t8.53@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>In article <1aa3scINNk38@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>I (singular) maintain that men (or rather, most men) are not 
>>particularly vocal in objecting to contraceptives that "impinge"
>>on women.  Most men seem to feel that it is preferable for the
>>woman to take the Pill (and perhaps suffer headaches, etc.) then 
>>for themselves to put up with the inconvenience of donning a condom.
>
>Are you implying that you think it is preferable for a man to put
>up with the inconvenience of a condom than it is for a woman to put
>up with the inconvenience of the Pill?

In times like these with so many STDs, one of which can kill you, I'm
amazed that nearly all people aren't using condoms, in addition to
other contraception hetero couples may want to use.  Safe sex requires
that condoms be used by hetero couples and gay couples.  Some lesbian
couples use condoms because they don't like dental dams (the latex
seems a bit thicker than that of condoms).

Xref: sparky alt.feminism:1613 soc.men:16936 soc.women:17043
From: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Value of Womens' Lives (was: _Backlash_)
Date: 26 Sep 92 05:52:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: msc.1992Sep26.055229.27451
Reply-To: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell-Materials-Science-Center
Originator: hillyard@tiger.msc.cornell.edu

From article <1992Sep25.001508.3182@s1.gov>, by lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich):
> In article <oneil.717307365@cwis> oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil) writes:
>>lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>>
>>>In article <yv8n__g.sheaffer@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
> 
> @ >This must explain why, in lifeboat situations, it's always "women and
> @ >children first."
> 
> @ 	A traditional stereotype, but one happily out of date in many
> @ cases. None of the airplane evacuation instructions I've ever seen
> @ include this.

The big difference, of course, is that when a big ship goes down you may
have a few hours to decide who gets to go in the boat.  When a plane crashes
if you're not out in seconds you're probably dead.

A 'lifeboat situation' would be where no strategy would let any more people
live, but someone has to die.

> 
>>Don't worry: he's grasping desperately to hang on to his argument
>>here.  When was the last time he was in a lifeboat situation?
> 
> 	Interesting question. What's the rule nowadays for (say)
> cruise ships? I presume they have enough lifeboat space for everybody.
> 
> 	I don't recall every seeing any such thing in evacuation
> instructions for BART [Bay Area Rapid Transit] trains and the various
> Bay Area ferries. For the ferries, it's simply put on life vests;
> there is supposed to be one for everybody. For BART, there are some

Its not a 'lifeboat situation' if there is enough for everybody.

> nontrivial features: the floor level is 3 or 4 feet above the track
> level (watch your step!!!), the trains are powered by a 1000 V
> electrified third rail (don't touch it!!!), and much of the route is
> either elevated or underground.
> 
> 	For putting on oxygen masks, all the airliner instructions
> I've ever seen state to put one on a little kid before putting on one
> for oneself. This would seem to be a case of "weakest first", though
> there is no "women and children first" anywhere.
> 
> 	So "women and children first" would seem to be a dead letter
> for evacuating crippled vehicles nowadays.

Because in an evacuation letting women and children first would likely
slow the overall evacuation down, putting more lives at risk.


Keeping with the header.

Why is it that when a disaster occurs the news usually reports it something
like this?  'And ten were killed by the bomb, including two women and a 
ten month old baby.'  Now its obvious that mentioning the baby is to heighten
the sense of tragedy.  What do you think the reason is for mentioning the
women separately?

SEH
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Shibboleth (was: Re: Censorship)
Date: 7 Oct 92 02:26:14 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

Now we have a shibboleth called "censorship."  Education
being what it is these days, I should explain that
_shibboleth_ was a meaningless word which an army in the
Bible used to determine who were the good guys and who
weren't, much as Americans in the Pacific in World War II
used "Walter Winchell", which doesn't go over too well in
Japanese phonemes.  Those who could pronounce _shibboleth_
correctly were okay, and the others were cut off, as they
say; or the other way around.  A shibboleth is part of
barricade thinking: you must recite it correctly, or you're
on the wrong side.

Now, in the very article which Hillel follows up in this
thread, I wrote,

| >Calling something "censorship" doesn't say very much; it's
| >propagandistic.  As I just pointed out, most people believe
| >in a great deal of suppression of free expression, for
| >example laws against libel, copyright laws, laws and regu-
| >lations against harassment, laws against fraud, zoning,
| >and so forth.  Are all these "censorship"?  No, because
| >somebody likes them.  

And so Hillel replies

| That was very nice, now please tell us if you, *personally* see
| see MacKinnon's anti-porno legislation as censorship.

As I said -- this is twice now, although in different words
-- I find the term "censorship", devoid of context,
virtually meaningless.  If you mean by it "tending to more
restriction of expression than I myself care for" then, yes,
MacKinnon's law is "censorship", and so is Playboy (an ongoing 
cultural project, Kenn) and quite possibly your politics as 
well.  I'm pretty radical on freedom of expression.  So what?  
I have to get along with the overwhelming majority who are
not as radical in these matters as I am, and my personal
beliefs are pretty irrelevant.

Besides, I think the whole censorship thing is sort of
fictitious anyway.  Censorship is about detectives in
fedoras busting sleazy skin magazine parlors back in 1951.
The proliferation of media, both in quality and quantity, is
going to make suppression a dead issue, if it isn't already.
I'm sure people in Canada, which has no freedom of speech as
we know it, get all the pornography they want.  They
certainly did when I lived there, back in the 1970s.  The 
really big question seems to be how much money you can make 
off it.

But that's not the point, is it?  The point is to conjure 
the demon DworkinMacKinnon, and thereby attack feminism in
general.  Otherwise, there would have been an equally long
discussion of free-expression feminists and even feminist
pornographers.  But there ain't, surprise, surprise.
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: sk73171@cs.tut.fi (Kiiskil{ Sami)
Subject: Re: Choice for men
Organization: Tampere Univ. of Technology, Finland.
	<SK73171.92Sep20191342@korppi.cs.tut.fi>
	<1992Sep20.194926.19493@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 08:00:48 GMT


In article <1992Sep20.194926.19493@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (Rini Clarkberg) writes:

> Sounds like you've been reading too much bad science fiction....

There isn't much time to read anything these days. And seems you have
different definitions for 'science fiction' or 'bad' than me, otherwise it
cannot be explained how you can find out what am I reading.

> Don't worry.  By your definition, Kiiskil{, there are no Real Feminists
> anywhere.  So you've won.  Why not trot along now and enjoy your hard won
> victory?

I can't win since I am a loser. Although the real winners are and will
always be the rats.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Money isn't everything, : Sami Kiiskil{  ( The { means 'ae' ) :   Nothing   :
: . . . there is also     : e-mail : sk73171@ee.tut.fi          :     is      :
:  H i g h - T e c h  ! ! : phone : 931-180690 or 934-428254    : impossible. :
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- 
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:1860 soc.women:17253
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda (Was: Value of...)
Date: 4 Oct 92 02:03:48 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
| >| 	I suspect that Hillel, like myself, is forever amazed that any
| >| response beyond "garbage" to such hilarious tripe is needed. Mackinnon
| >| is simply espousing that most ancient of human superstitions, animism,
| >| the belief that objects (magazines and photographs, in this instance)
| >| contain a _geist_, an animating spirit of their own. "Playboy" cannot
| >| objectify women; every issue I've ever seen just sat there, on table or
| >| shelf, thoroughly inanimate. Objectification is done by the
| >| viewer/reader. ...

gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
| >Do you mean to say that one cannot use the term _Playboy_ 
| >to mean the whole system of composing, publishing, selling,
| >buying, and reading _Playboy_, as McKinnon is clearly doing,
| >and be understood?

kb:
| 	Gosh, Gordon, if I'd meant to say that, I would have said it,
| wouldn't I? And my article would have stopped where your quote of it
| did. If you can't comprehend the entire argument, don't bother
| responding to just the 1st paragraph.

Why not, if it seems to contain an absurdity?  How am I 
supposed to get past the statement that "'Playboy' cannot
objectify women [because it's] inanimate"?  And you went
to a lot of trouble to say it, too, even using a little
German.  Once someone starts throwing in German words, 
giving text that Teutonic heft, I assume they think 
they're saying something pretty important.

kb:
| 	I despise the practise of writing down to the reader; it's
| patronizing. If you find sense in the nonsense she writes, perhaps you
| can do better? You could hardly be worse :-).

I only know what I read in the newspapers, and you know
what that's worth.  The New York Times did an article on
her a year or two ago which quoted her extensively, and
while I disagreed with much of what she was said to have 
said, it certainly wasn't either nonsense or 
patronization.  Or were you being hyperbolic?

-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Choice for men: moving beyond anti-feminism
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 01:26:16 GMT

In article <BvAvDI.Huv@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>You conveniently omitted the diaphragm.

It's my understanding that the diaphragm can cause toxic shock
syndrome and causes bladder infections in some women.

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (moz [chris moseley])
Subject: Re: Sexy clothing encourage rape?
Organization: Electrical Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 22:54:47 GMT

David O Hunt <bluelobster+@CMU.EDU> writes:
> 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.

you may also expect that MEN will look at you. Do you find that offensive? 

reminds me of a friend who's
interest in body-building is apparently fueled by watching the men
working out. No that he is otherwise uninterested, but all those 
muscles, and sweaty bodies are what he talks about.

moz
From: costello@cs.umd.edu (Lisa A. Costello)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Sexy clothing encourage rape?
Date: 2 Oct 92 19:37:30 GMT
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742

In article <1ai1l5INN604@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>Besides, if our society really believed that sexy clothing *caused*
>rape, wouldn't one expect rape victims to be able to turn around and 
>sue clothing stores for selling and advertising those sexy clothes
>in the first place?
>
>						--  Michal

Ha, don't laugh yet.  In a society as litigious as ours is, it is only
a matter of time before someone thinks of that route and seriously
tries it.

And just wait for the first guy who decides to sue his rape victim
because she was wearing sexy clothes. <shudder>

Lisa
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Mace, Pepperguard, etc.
Date: 6 Oct 92 00:32:29 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil) writes:

>    What's really scary to me is that the dead Omaha girl was abducted right
>outside her high school right as classes started.  I mean, whoever got her
>got her in the daylight as she was just going about her business.  It's really
>stressful when you consider that you're not even safe during the daytime.

Yes it is stressful.  As a women you are not safe in the daytime, and you're
not even safe in your own home.

>    I'm not so sure that carrying around this keychain is going to make me
>feel all that much better, but it will probably give my dad some peace of 
>mind.  

If so, he's fooling himself.  Maybe you can get your Dad to take a self
defense class with you.

>    What a sick and sordid world we live in.

Sad, but true.

							--  Michal
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:1773 soc.men:17083 rec.music.funky:1450
From: tim@crash.canon.co.uk
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,rec.music.funky
Subject: Re: Why put ruffles on condoms?
Date: 29 Sep 92 21:27:46 GMT
Followup-To: talk.bizarre,alt.inappropriate.followup
Organization: me myself and i

In alt.feminism and soc.men, peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) asks:
::
|>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???

Ask the Red Hot Chili Peppers.

Tx. [glad to be of service]
-- 
Tim F O'Donoghue <tim@crash.canon.co.uk> <uunet!canon!tim>
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:1754 soc.men:17059
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Why put ruffles on condoms?
Date: 29 Sep 1992 17:33:28 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

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

							--  Michal
From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Bias in Academia?
Date: 29 Sep 1992 23:33:54 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
NNTP-Posting-Host: zabriskie.berkeley.edu

>>I'll turn it around.  Would it be fair for a woman who worked shorter hours
>>or took a substantial break in the middle of her career to reach the top as
>>fast as her male peers who worked non-stop through the same period ? 
>
>It is fair for a society not to help with childcare and then present
>us with this as the only "reasonable" choice?

It's absolutely fair for society to not help with childcare.

If somebody wants to take time-out in mid-career to
pursue something of a personal nature that's their
personal choice.  They should expect a commesurate negative impact 
on their carrer.  And I don't care whether that "something"
is looking after their children for 5 years, or following
the Grateful Dead around for 5 years -- I am disinclined
to help them out with my tax dollars either way.

Somewhere, sometime recently, SOMEBODY put a stake in
the ground, held out the tin cup, and said that costs
associated with caring for children are somehow in a different 
category than all the other things one might choose to spend
one's money on.  Now granted, I'm enough of a
socialist to believe that the truly needy should be
helped out with their necessary expenses, including those
related to caring for a child.  But I'll be damned if I,
a middle class taxpayer, am gonna hand over money to
other middle class taxpayers so they can pursue their
breeding activities.  I can spend the money better myself.

Those who have the means to do so should have to
finance the costs of raising children out of their
after-tax income.  Just because it's an expensive
proposition doesn't mean you should soak the taxpayers
for it.

Steve
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder)
Subject: Re: Freshman
Organization: The Ohio State University
 writes:
 <1992Oct2.144110.14525@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 00:19:35 GMT

What is your source for this?  I know that is a cliche but you must show me 
that statistic.  Just because you say it and may believe it doesn't make it 
true.
>
>I mean, why should I call you Jeff?  What's wrong with me calling
>you "JerkfaceJeffy"?

You can call me JerkfaceJeffy, if you like, RinTinRini ( :) ).
I find it amusing and it certainly separates
me from other Jeffs' that post!.  Call me anything you like.  As the famous
saying goes "sticks and stones...."
>
>Why shouldn't we call blacks "niggers"?  Or Italians "wops"?
>Because a fair share of them consider it offensive.  Isn't that
>enough?

I can call them anything I want.  If I want a positive response from 
someone I will use a term that is not deragatory.  Besides, nigger, 
wop, spic ,kike,wasp, cracker, are not always offensive.
>
>rini
>

JerkfaceJeffy  :^]   (my new sig!)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Value of Womens' Lives (was: _Backlash_)
Organization: LLNL
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 01:12:44 GMT

In article <rda753x.717645077@nella16.cc.monash.edu.au> rda753x@nella16.cc.monash.edu.au (Richard Jones) writes:
@ sk73171@cs.tut.fi (Kiiskil{ Sami) writes:

@ >I have heared that if astronauts and submarine crews would be selected
@ >by physical reasons, all they will be women. That is based on that
@ >women are generally smaller and their power/volume/weight factors can
@ >become better than men with proper training. Since there are more men
@ >in those areas, it would suggest that there are other reasons than
@ >physical ( like mental capacity ?) that are considered more important.

>   Actually, the entire space race started (and probably still is) as one big
>propoganda stunt. The entire thing was staged.

	Are you stating that it is all a big fat hoax?

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 22:57:32 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.192531.5240@ads.com> charleen@ADS.COM (Charleen Bunjiovianna) writes:
>
>If you're considering the _National Enquirer_ as a serious source of
>information, it does make me wonder about the validity of the research
>you do for other activites, such as your _SI_ column.  The _Skeptical
>Inquirer_ is expensive, as magazines go; I don't care to pay (what is
>it, $6.50 an issue now?) for shoddy assumptions and rumor-mongering.
>In fact, I thought that opposition to such practices is what _SI_ is
>all about.

I don't think you grasp the point. First, there are two "levels" of
tabloids, call tham "A" and "B".

A: Writes stories on sensationalized subjects, but for the most part
   writes them accurately.
      
         National Enquirer
         The Star

B. Routinely invents stories from whole cloth.

         Weekly World News
         Globe

As for the Enquirer, if they print a story saying "Lumberjack Had Breakfast
With Bigfoot," I would have no doubt that there IS a lumberjack who made
such a claim. And that's as far as I would go.

And while it is true that the Royal Family isn't going to sue, plenty of
other people might, hence they've become reasonably careful at validating
statements. Of course, since none of US was in the Palace to witness
any Royal Battles, we invariably will have to rely on someone else's 
account.
 
P.S.: So is the new scandal-book about Ted Kennedy true, or not?

-- 
  
        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: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Sexy clothing encourage rape?
Date: 1 Oct 92 00:52:06 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:

>In article <MUFFY.92Sep29170020@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>Okay, I'll try to rephrase it.  Assuming that it is the case that you
>>are attractive to other people in a pair of tight jeans, and that you
>>know this, and that you are raped while wearing such clothing, do you
>>think that the rapist should get a lighter sentence, since you are
>>partially responsible for the effects of your clothing on this person?
>>If not, then what does it matter *how* you are dressed?  If so, then how
>>much lighter should the sentence be for what sorts of dress?

>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?

Besides, the whole concept of "I couldn't help myself, she was wearing 
tight clothes" is pretty demeaning to *men*.  Are they seriously trying
to gain sympathy from claiming to be all id and have no control over
their own penises?

							--  Michal