HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Freshman
Date: 2 Oct 92 23:27:25 GMT
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences

In article <1992Oct1.133541.27201@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder) writes:

  [ton o statements (all repeats about MAN's gender or lack thereof gone.]

>
>    AW:
>    No doubt it is.  But I will say yet again, look at its
>    affect.
>
>What affect?  You have yet to demonstrate that freshman (or
>similar words) means anything other than what is intended.

For years and years and years a woman is continually referred to as a "man".
Now it may be because of poor grammar skills, (as you seem to contend is the
problem here) but many wome, because man can be exclusively male as well as a
blanket term for male and female, feel "left out".

This went unnoticed for the longest time in much the same way that a dripping
faucet may only become annoying after lots and lots of drips.

Regardless of WHY women dislike this term, and regardless of whether it's silly
or not, don't you think that if somebody prefers not to be called something
you should respect that?

Are there no labels for you that you find objectionable?  And isn't it really
silly when you get down it that these labels are objectionable?  But wouldn't
you appreciate it if people didn't use these labels for you?

To see why women might object to this whole language thing, (which I, for the 
longest time, "just didn't get it") perhaps you could try to imagine that you
had grown up in a world where it was the exact reverse, ie woman was the
umbrella term for male and female.

Don't just casually shrug it off and say it wouldn't have bothered you.  Maybe
you are thick-skinned and it wouldn't have.  But really reflect on this and
try to run through your whole life in your mind again, but just imagine it with
this little difference.  You may conclude that it wouldn't have bothered YOU,
but I hope you will at least see how it COULD bother some people.

I know this is hard to do.  It's hard for a male to see why it matters.  Even
if you can't see why, don't you think it's small enough that if somebody
doesn't want to be called <foo>, you should respect that?
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Subject: Re: Observations from male studentnt
Reply-To: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena, CA
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 23:59:25 GMT

zen@death.corp.sun.com (d) writes:
>> Not really. If a rapist has no target, how can he (or she) rape?
>  Sigh.  You don't think people aren't raped in their homes?  At work?
>Anywhere?  *Everyone* is a potential target -- the only way you're not
>going to get raped is if you've been (literally) cremated.

You seem to be implying that everyone gets raped at sometime or other.
Gee...I've never been raped (though I do pay income tax). 

>> I'm not saying that the woman has COMPLETE and TOTAL responsibiity
>> for some whacked out fool who wants to force his sexuality on others...
>> but I won't absolve her of any responsibility either. 
>  So what you're saying is that if you're at home or work, reading this
>post right now, that you're responsible if someone grabs you from behind
>and rapes you?  

And I *let* them...yes. But that's me. Obviously there are situations on
one side of the coin and on the other. 

>By your logic people are responsible for being raped by just breathing.  

MUST it either be "one" or the "other"? There are some situations, granted,
where there is very little responsibility on the rapee. Don't forget that
rapist...that rapist has responsibility as well. 

You've basically got two poles...on one hand you have the rapist who rapes
an innocent victim...and on the other hand you have the couple out on a date
who have consensual sex and then for some reason or other the woman decides to
cry "Rape!". You can't judge both circumstances by the same standard, and you
can't provide one rule (i.e. "way it is") that will handle all cases. 

I am humbly suggesting that the endpoints of the grey scale do not exist.

>Don't forget, men get raped as well --
>so if you ever get raped and someone tells you you shouldn't have provoked
>your attacker, or that you somehow are responsible, let your tears
>pierce your soul, let your anguish mend your flesh, and let your guilt
>and rightous responsibility crush your waning spirit.

It's this culture's problem that the spirit is crushed by the concepts of
an oppressive worldview. I don't work that way...sorry. While this culture
determines with the mind, holds the heart, gives up the spirit, and receives
with the body...I will determine with my spirit, hold with my body, give with
my heart, and receive with my mind. 

>  Let a bit of poetic expression liven up this group :-)  Hopefully the
>point is not lost in prosaic expression.

Actually that was very well done. Just on the wrong tack. 
-- 
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov       dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov         ...usc!elroy!dxh

                    It will pass, whatever it is.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: Re: "Alt.feminism - why it should be shut down.  A sample post!"
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 20:41:51 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

abbst@vms.cis.pitt.edu writes:
| >> From what I've read here, a certain someone wants this group and soc.men
| >> censored to help womyn.  It's lucky that the net is so diverse.

muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
| >*LAUGH*.  Well, this certainly is a surprise to me.  What I said, as
| >quoted right here on this fine newsgroup was that I did *not* recommend
| >anyone doing that, but that I would find it more *believable* as an
| >effort to help women than I do the censoring of alt.sex.bondage.  After
| >all, *this* is where all the hatred of women comes out, not a.s.b.

sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
| Yes, "I'm not favoring *censoring* this slimy newsgroup, but if
| SOMEONE ELSE were to do that, I'd stand by the sidelines and cheer!"

That's not what she said.  You're straining, Robert.

| How many people recall my own prediction of a few weeks ago (soundly
| derided at the time), that the P.C. crowd would soon be telling people
| NOT to post on "alt.feminism"?  [ reposts entire article ]

I don't know who the "P.C. crowd" is -- maybe you could
give names -- but I haven't seen anyone tell anyone not
to post on alt.feminism.  So derision seems fairly apt.
I guess you could keep trying.  There are a few nut cases
out there who might eventually be inspired to identify
alt.feminism with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion or
the Illuminati.  You know, it reads the serial numbers
off your money when you try to post, etc.

I took a survey of the articles present at one site, and
out of 83 only about 16 (by my informal judgment) were
anti-feminist.  About twice as many were pro-feminist, and
the remainder were neutral, mixed, or off-the-wall/can't-
tell.  As this particular site has software which 
annihilates any articles mentioning Star Trek or Ayn Rand,
I may be a bit off about the off-the-wall category, but
as a feminist I see nothing to complain about.  By the
way, Robert, this is a personal machine we're talking
about, so don't go over the hill about censorship, okay?

-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (moz [chris moseley])
Subject: Re: Women as Victims (was:_Backlash_ ( Sort of ))
Organization: Electrical Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 00:52:21 GMT

lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
> Hey, maybe it's time alt.feminism tries to put together a platform we can
> agree on.
how about one where there are more than two sides to the argument?
Must write up my radical bisexual masculist policy and post it - 
when I get it finished.

> Let's face it, if *WE* can agree on a few basic things, it might be worth
> doing.
yup.

moz
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (Rini Clarkberg)
Subject: Re: "Alt.feminism - why it should be shut down.  A sample post!"
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 20:48:45 GMT

In article <6414@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> 
tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood) writes:
>
>The important question that one must ask one's self when reading *any*
>moderated newsgroup (or newspaper) is "What signal is being sent?".  It may
>not be "censored" but it is clearly edited and with editing can come bias.

Are there unmoderated newspapers?  I thought they all had editors....

>The price one pays for an unmoderated forum is "noise".  But I'd rather have
>the "noise" and be allowed to make my own decision on what to read and what
>to throw away.

I like unmoderated newsgroups too.

rini
From: zen@death.corp.sun.com (d)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: _Backlash_ ( Sort of )
Date: 29 Sep 92 20:00:51 GMT
	<ZEN.92Sep26152439@death.corp.sun.com> <22549@galaxy.ucr.edu>
Organization: savage hackers
NNTP-Posting-Host: death.corp.sun.com
In-reply-to: starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu's message of 27 Sep 92 16:07:24 GMT


In article <22549@galaxy.ucr.edu> starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu (starbuck) writes:
>  In article zen@death.corp.sun.com (d) writes:
> > Equality *is* synonymous to feminism.
> Were you and I differ is that I do not agree that equality is synonymous
> to feminism.  Maybe once, but not anymore...

  Well, you're in in agreement with lots of men here.

> Where I see feminist thinking as being faulty for example is in trying to
> convince women that they are all victims, that they have no power, and in
> trying to place the blame for all failures of women on men.  Feminists define
> much of what they profess in terms of men.

  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.

> As an example of faulty thinking
> is the case of domestic violence.  To the feminist it is a simple case of
> violence agianst women and children.

  Sigh.  Here we go again, with the polemical foo... no.  To the
feminist it is *not* a simple case of anything.  To *you* it's a simple
case of slapping a disagreeable label on something good so you can
smugly ignore it and preserve the status quo.

> To think you can solve a part of a problem by attacking
> only the half that suits your purpose is faulty thinking. 

  But you continue to attack the radical part of feminism, which is much
less than the half you claim that they attack.  As long as it suits your
purpose, I know.

 --d
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Conditioning during Masturbation
Date: 4 Oct 92 23:40:46 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
|                                        ... Sorry, I remain amused by
| the image of Playboy using nekkid women to sell guys on the virtues of
| a free press. Or was it using libertarian ideals to sell guys on the
| virtues of pictures of nekkid women? I get so confused.

Well, you're amused by what's supposed to be one of the
fundamental principles of modern psychology; you must find
the more substantial texts hilarious.  We await your
further critiques of the science with bated breath.
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Bias in Academia?
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 05:59:50 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.233345.6600@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis) writes:
>In article <1992Sep26.233238.24140@leland.Stanford.EDU>
>farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>
>> This is not at all obvious to me what you mean by this.  Do you mean
>> that you, as the sole wage-earner in your family, can't spend more
>> time with it?  Do you mean that your female friend, with a husband who
>> earns as much or more than she, can?
>> 
>> Or is it that your wife does most of the childcare as you work and
>> your female friend does most of the childcare as she works?
>
>But...  Garry didn't say if he is the sole wage earner, or if he is
>married, or if he has children, or if his friend is married, or if so
>how much her husband earns.
>
>Has he revealed all this in an earlier post?  Or are you just pulling a
>"John G. DeArmond" on us and annoucing your speculation as fact?

Hmmm...  where did I present any of this as fact?  My speculations
were exactly that, speculations as to why he said what he said, that
his female friend, off to pick up her child at daycare, wanted to stay
late and work while he wanted to leave work.  That is why I said that
what he meant by this is not at all obvious to me.

I hardly see where my post was pulling one on you and announcing
speculation as fact.

Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women,soc.men
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Paglia to Speak in S.F. Tuesday
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 05:04:44 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

       (Ad in the San Francisco EXAMINER, Sept. 27, 1992)

                      IMAGE Magazine &

            A Clean Well-Lighted Place for Books

                           present

A
    CAMILLE PAGLIA, author, scholar, feminist, libertarian, contrarian

        & author of the best-selling "SEXUAL PERSONAE"

        and the newly released book "Sex, Art, & American Culture: Essays"

     Tuesday, Sept. 29, 8:00 PM,  Herbst Theatre. All Tickets $12

            San Francisco Examiner [masthead]

  For Ticket Information, call City Box Office 415-392-4400, or
            Bass ticket outlets 510-762-2277.


-- 
  
        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"
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.folklore.urban
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Subject: Re: MacKinnon Legislation Based on Urban Legends?
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 21:25:36 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.184942.4243@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>The important question is not whether this is an Urban Legend, as it plainly
>seems to be one.
>
>The important question is, exactly what role does this little fable play in
>MacKinnon's Morality Play??

In one of her books MacKinnon makes the snuff film claims -- that a
portion of the pornography industry is devoted to actually murdering
women.  She even footnotes it, but the footnote (hidden in the back of
the book) merely cites:

- Arlen Specter on the Senate floor claiming that snuff films are a 
  national disgrace, and
- a California case where two teens murdered a woman and at one point
  confessed making a videotape of it, though the videotape was never
  found.

No doubt, Specter will cite to MacKinnon next time he makes a speech
about snuff films.  The California case obviously doesn't count.

Still, it's not as ludicrous as MacKinnon's claim that a double-digit
percentage of women work as prostitutes at one point in their lives.
-- 
ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu 
also at quibeaux@uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
ajax crypto-analyzer -- warning! remove all chicken bones first
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic)
Subject: Re: ERA
Organization: TRW Financial Systems
Distribution: alt.feminism
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 13:09:24 GMT

dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg) writes:
>a right to privacy hidden in about 64 * 10^458 clauses in the
>Constitution.  So, while I happen to agree with the result of Roe vs.
>Wade, it scared some people away from the ERA.  Who knew what rights
>would be read into this document?  The job for feminists (that is if
>they wanted the ERA to pass) would be to calm those fears.  But too
>many feminists (prob. the radicals, but it's always easy to get press
>for the radicals in any group) started theorizing about uni-sex
>bathrooms and the ilk.  So you have the supporters (or some of the
>supporters) of the ERA talking about all of the radical changes it
>would bring at the same time as you have a court liable to interepet
>it that way.  So, again, it was not the ammendment itself, but the
>dialouge around it, that caused the ERA to go down in flames.

I think you've got it backwards. The people who did *not* want the ERA
were the people with the unisex bathroom theories.
Feminists would not be able to calm the fears of those people, as I recall
those people did not identify with feminism, and would be unlikely to listen
to a 'feminist'.
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:1710 soc.men:17009
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: statistics and questions
Date: 26 Sep 92 13:24:03 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

I gather that one of the critical determinants in women's
income and hierarchical status is time in grade -- or
maybe more accurately, time in job experience generally.
I've seen it repeatedly said that women who have put in
the same time get the same money and the same promotions;
may do a little bit better, in fact.  "Time" refers to
both hours per day and years of employment.  

Those who are interested in equality for women should
then look at this question of time.  If the women have
put in less time, what else have they been doing?  My
guess is that they have not been predominantly lounging
about watching TV and eating pretzels.  My guess is
that a lot of them have been taking care of children,
or possibly other needy members of families.  But I 
don't have any statistics at the moment.

Now, if this is the case, I think it's interesting that
time spent in child care is considered wasted by 
employers.  I've done it, and it's by far the most
demanding work I've ever performed.  So I think we might
be looking at an example of how prejudice works so that
no one has to look at it.  Women's work in raising
the next generation, a critically important task for
any civilization, is devalued, but it's done off the
stage.  When she finally comes to work, all the guys
are already there congratulating themselves on their
industriousness.

A similar analysis can be applied to the many-hours-
per-day theory, also known as the "Mommy Track".

As a related phenomenon, consider the demographics,
status and wages of day-care workers, another group
of people who engage in child care.
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:1950 soc.men:17262 soc.women:17324
From: lls@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Lori Smallwood)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Violent Di Batters Charles
Keywords: Poor Little Princess!
Date: 2 Oct 92 19:38:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Oct2.193828.14783
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.

In article <1992Oct2.004930.16563@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>From the National Enquirer, Sept. 26 (approx), 1992:
>
>"VIOLENT DI  BATTERS CHARLES"
>
>        Di and Charles' divorce has turned shockingly violent - she's
>    flying into rages during which she punches and kicks the Prince,
>    leaving him bruised and battered.

>
>Of course Di should batter her husband - her *needs* weren't being *met*!  :)
>
>Poor Prince Charles (indeed, poor Royal Family); yet another casualty of
>the contemporary headlong rage for gender-bending.
>
>Some questions for the Net:
>
>  A) Should Charles fight back?
>
>  B) Why isn't Di just *delighted* with Charles? He's the very model of
>     a soft, sensitive, non-exploitationist husband, a dependable
>     provider and loving father, exactly what feminists SAY they want.
>
>  C) Might his marriage now be in far better shape if he had stood up
>     to her abuse from the beginning?
>

How about D) This is the *Enquirer* we're talking about here -- if it's for
real, why isn't it in a credible newspaper?  I don't mean to flame you --
but I (along with most others) are conditioned to not believe the stories
in tabloids - or at least take them with a grain of salt.

>-- 
>  
>        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"


-- Lori
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Bias in Academia?
Date: 30 Sep 92 15:20:59 GMT
 <1aap52INN77u@agate.berkeley.edu>  
 <1992Sep30.090858.1272@leela.cs.orst.edu>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <1992Sep30.090858.1272@leela.cs.orst.edu>
petersm@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU (Marguerite Petersen) writes:

> >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 Pope]

> And this attitude is probably why it is so difficult to get any decent
> money for education in this country, including good schools and decent
> wages for qualified teachers.   [Marguerite Petersen]

What?  Are you conflating daycare and secondary education?  Do you
believe that taxpayers opposed to funding state-supplied daycare are
opposed to funding state-supplied secondary education?

If so, let me correct you.  I'm against the former and for the latter. 
Public education has long been recognized as being worthy of tax dollar
suport.  Daycare has not.
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:1719 soc.men:17020
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (Rini Clarkberg)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Why put ruffles on condoms?
Date: 28 Sep 92 19:01:33 GMT
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

About condoms....

Someone once wrote:

Consequently, while the
American model has been improved with respect to bells and
whistles (e.g. textures, colors and perfumes)....
 
To which someone replied:

This seems to be feminist-driven in part: men must be educated to
know the female body and give pleasure.  Hence textures are
important, because a man dare not ignore a woman's pleasure.

-----------------------------------------

So I posed the question on alt.sex:  are there women who can feel
the texture of ribbed condoms?  

For the curious, the results were:  

- one woman reported liking them a great deal.  
- two women reported feeling them and disliking it.
- six women reported no difference.

(Note:  some of these women  "reported" through their lovers who made
the posts.)

So, I still wonder -- if the ribs aren't there for the women....  who
are they there for?  :)  Or perhaps it's the 1/9th of women who can tell
who are buying them...?

rini
Newsgroups: alt.feminism