HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: "Alt.feminism - why it should be shut down.  A sample post!"
Date: 28 Sep 92 17:28:08 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Sep26.204151.17941@panix.com>, gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:

  > 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.

Yea, right!  Which pot is calling which kettle "black"?

Censorship leaves a bad taste in my mouth.  Even when it's only a suggested
as being more "*believable* as an effort".  One doesn't have to be a genius
to read between the lines.

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:1742 soc.men:17042
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Choice for men: moving beyond anti-feminism
Date: 29 Sep 92 05:03:49 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BvBq2J.58D.2
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <BvAvDI.Huv@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

>You're off topic, O Wise One (a term of endearment or respect, I hope),
>but you ought to have noticed that most of Pennsylvania's restrictions 
>were struck down as "undue burden."

Fine, she was off-topic.  You're just plain wrong.

One of the restrictions in Pennsylvania's Abortion Control Act
was struck down as an undue burden.  (That was husband notification.)
All of the others were upheld.

Susan
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic)
Subject: Re: Trying to see a woman's point of view
To: feminism@ncar.ucar.edu
Organization: TRW Financial Systems
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 12:16:48 GMT

Posted to alt.feminism until our sysads fix the broken link to soc.feminism
we have here.

jmoran@head-cfa.harvard.edu (John Moran) writes:

>(Before I get flamed for being insensitive to men's issues,
>let me state that I do support the men's "mytho-poetic"
>movement, a la Robert Bly.  I also have learned much from
>Sam Keen's "Fire in the Belly" and am trying to read more about
>the "Fathers' Rights" movement, however, I believe such
>discussion belongs in "soc.men", and NOT in "*.feminism")
>
>-John Moran

I certainly don't want to see support/custody issues drown this group.
Men's feelings *are* however germane here. It is *not* only women who
define what feminism is. Women who claim so are in denial, in my opinion.
As are the men who endorse that view. This is soc.feminism, not soc.women.

>   The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women.  It
>is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that
>encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children,
>practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians.

I understand (?) you don't espouse the above; why post it?
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Bias in Academia?
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 10:50:47 GMT

chpetk@gdr.bath.ac.uk (Toby Kelsey) writes:
>Education is about giving children opportunities.
>
>Daycare is about giving adults more free time.

Not really.  I don't know what the state of childcare is in the UK.
Here in the US, it's pretty bad.  It's hard to find childcare for
infants (I've heard horror stories of women 3 months pregnant being on
waiting lists to get their infants into childcare) and expensive.
Much childcare is catch-as-catch-can, relatives, neighbors, children
being kept in someone's house.  The good childcare centers are usually
packed and there are waiting lists.  Librarians complain of children
coming from school to the public libraries because there's nowhere
else for them to go, thus the libraries act as babysitters.  And we've
all heard of the latch-key kids.

It's not about giving adults more free time, it's about helping a
single parent hold down a job.  It's about providing constructive
activities for a child who otherwise has to go home alone to watch TV.

I don't have children and I don't want children.  But to ignore the
millions of kids who get dangerous, sub-standard care or no care
simply because their parents are too poor to buy better care is a
disgrace.  I'd also like to remind the adults who think the shoddy
treatment kids get is fine or not their problem that we're going to be
old and dependent on these kids some day.
From: moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (moz [chris moseley])
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Daycare (was Re: Bias in Academia?)
Date: 4 Oct 92 23:44:26 GMT
 <1992Oct1.202550.18976@gdr.bath.ac.uk> <7vpz57a@rpi.edu> <1992Oct4.191543.768@gdr.bath.ac.uk>
Organization: Electrical Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand

chpetk@gdr.bath.ac.uk (Toby Kelsey) writes:
>  [daycare]
> Yes.  It should be called that, if it is.  However parents
> are the best people to teach a young child and they should
> if they can.

even illiterate, uneducated parents? What about abusive ones?
What about teenage parents? Or mentally handicapped parents?

Education is `best' done by those with some aptitude for it,
and preferably some training as well IMHO.

moz 
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:1842 soc.men:17177 alt.sex:31478
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Choice for men: moving beyond anti-feminism
From: moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (moz [chris moseley])
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 02:25:53 GMT
Organization: Electrical Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand

In article <m8FwRB8w164w@cellar.org>, rogue@cellar.org (Rachel McGregor) writes:
> Diaphragms ARE intrauterine devices

bzzzt. wrong-answer-thank-you-for-playing.

Diaphrams should go OUTSIDE the uterus, over thge cervix. Otherwise you
would nee to dialte the cervix to fit on, and would need tools every time
you took it out or put it in. Maybe that explains some of why you think
they fail so often.

moz
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg)
Subject: Re: Observations from male studentnt
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<CINDY.92Sep20171742@meshugge.media.mit.edu>
	<1992Sep25.214541.15830@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>
	<ZEN.92Sep25173538@death.corp.sun.com>
	<1992Sep29.005352.2047@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>
	<MUFFY.92Sep28180535@remarque.berkeley.edu>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 23:58:23 GMT

In article <MUFFY.92Sep28180535@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

   ...   If you were wearing a tight pair of jeans, for
   example, should the rapist get a reduced sentence or be set free because
   you were "provoking" the rape?

   Similarly, if it is your mother walking down the street, what is she
   responsible for doing to avoid this?  What might reduce the
   responsibility of the rapist?

   Do you think that a rapist should be let go if the victim is
   sufficiently "irresponsible" or "provoking" in their manner or dress?
   How much is enough?

   Muffy
   --

While I don't feel that a rapist's sentence should be reduced because
his (using the male gender intentionally) victim was wearing tight
clothing, however I think someone could be held "responsible" for their
rape because of inattention.  To use an analogy, if I park my car in a
high-crime area and leave the windows open, then if someone steals the
tape deck, I am somewhat responsible.  This doesn't mean that if I
catch the thief that their sentence should be lowever, but it does
mean that it was stupid for me to have left the windows open.  In
other words, calling someone responsible is not always blaming the
victim.  

Having said that, I would like to add that most female aquaintances
(sp?) of mine tend to be very knowledgable in terms of self defense.
One friend shocked me by revealing that she always carried a knife
with her.  Sometimes I weep for my gender...
-David "ZZYZX" Steinberg
***********************************
*  "There's a dog in the station  *
*   With a bad reputation         *
*   That's a sign of the nation's *
*   Decay"                        *
***********************************




Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: wcsanil@superior.carleton.ca (Anil Prasad)
Subject: Gender stats for e-mail usage, are there any?
Organization: Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 00:36:40 GMT

I'm taking a course called "Information Technology and Gender" and
am considering doing some sort of study on e-mail usage. I have no
concrete plans or anything yet, but I'm wondering if anyone can point
me to a source for information and stats on the subject. If you
can help, please get in touch with me. 

Thanks,

Anil Prasad
wcsanil@ccs.carleton.ca
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Observations from male studentnt
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 00:14:57 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.195109.18994@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.191526.16364@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:

[ bit bucket overflow....]

>>The only thing that occurs to me is that the living enviornment often
>>changes when one goes to college. Perhaps this can account for a change
>>in performance. I doubt that it would apply in all cases, but perhaps in
>>enough to skew the averages? How much is the skew?
>
>Rich, this is only relevant if the living environment changes are greater for
>the "under-rated" group.  

How so, perhaps the enviornmental factors assist the overrated group.

>                        While it almost certainly is relevant for minorities
>(and is a very good thought that I have not seen before, BTW), I don't think it
>will hold water when comparing the under-rating of women.

I don't think so. If the culturally acceptable 'girls must <do,be> like so'
is dominant at home, then perhaps greater and faster growth will occur
in a healthier enviornment, or even one that lacks the negative factors.
 
[...]
 
>Yes, we're all too emotional, but these topics are the kind that get people
>worked up.  The twisting of words referred to is your previous failure (since
>rectified) to note that the tests have been shown to be skewed by performance
>measurements.  Since you've already corrected this, let's hope it will be
>dropped.

Agreed, there is much that could be dropped.

[more surgery, no anesthetic! :^]
 
>"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu

Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
From: blade@dorsai.com (Terry Hoffman)
Subject: Re: Choice for men: moving beyond anti-feminism
Organization: The Dorsai Embassy +1.718.729.5018
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 07:50:07 GMT

muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
: In article <1ad4tuINN8kb@bigboote.WPI.EDU> walkerr@yaya.WPI.EDU (Robert A Walker) writes:
: > Well, if you knew who you were having sex with, ie could stay with one person,
: > and not cheat on them and wait quite sometime before hopping in the hay with 
: > them
: 
: Sure, just wait 10 years or so to make sure they don't have AIDS.  It
: can take that long (maybe longer) for any symptoms to show up.
: 
: > but if you want to use a condom because you don't
: > know were your partner has been then you don't trust/know them enough to 
: > be having sex with them.
: 
: Your partner may not "know where they've been," either.  I remember all
: the people I have had sex with and AS FAR AS I KNOW none of them have
: any STDs, but I can't be 100% sure of that, especially since they might
: not even know.
: 
: Muffy
: --
: 
: Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
: ~Little round planet/in a big universe/sometimes it looks blessed/
:  sometimes it looks cursed/Depends on what you look at, obviously/
:  But even more it depends on the way that you see~ - Bruce Cockburn
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (Rini Clarkberg)
Subject: Re: The 75% woman
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 03:09:21 GMT

kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts) writes:
>
>What would the effect on society, culture and evolution be if women comprised
>75% of the population?  Would women today be better off today?  In a stronger
>position?

There's a book on this you might like.  It's called "Too Many Women?  The
Sex Ratio Question"  by Marcia Guttentag and Paul F. Secord.  (Sage
Publications, c 1983).  

In this book they look at small fluctuations in the sex ratio and 
trace it to fluxuations in women's rights.  They also do racial 
comparisons for similar effect.  (The sex ratio is particularly
abysmal for black women, as many young black men are killed and 
incarcerated.  And if you consider only "marriageable" men [employed, 
have income] it's even worse...)

I dunno if I buy it, but it sounds like you would like it.

rini
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Subject: Re: Violent Di Batters Charles
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 02:06:31 GMT
Keywords: Poor Little Princess!

In article <1992Oct2.004930.16563@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>        "She said, 'He's a sniveling wimp. He just skulks away.
>    Sometimes he even cries.'"
>        During one argument, Di swung a fist at Charles' head, his
>    pal disclosed.
>        "He walked away and she screamed after him: 'You bloody
>    royal wimp! Why don't you stay and fight! You don't have the guts!
>    Running away to your mommy, are you?'"
>        But in Di's defense, pals point out that she isn't solely to
>    blame for the couple's problems. Charles' long emotional neglect
>    has left her an emotional wreck - and stress has taken a physical
>    toll....
>
>Some questions for the Net:
>
>  A) Should Charles fight back?

He must do *something* to dispel this "wimp" image.  Maybe he should
give Dan Rather a hard time during an interview....

Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM 
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:1612 soc.men:16934
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Value of Womens' Lives (was: _Backlash_)
Date: 26 Sep 92 05:43:53 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

In article <MUFFY.92Sep25182331@remarque.berkeley.edu> 
muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

>In article <6327@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood) writes:
>>In article <MUFFY.92Sep25155724@remarque.berkeley.edu>, muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

>>For the longest time, it hasn't been considered "right" or "correct" for men
>>to form organizations.  Many men's groups are met with hostility or are seen
>>as a threat to women's groups.

>Can you give some examples of this?  

There has been feminists' objection to men's organizations.  
You could find three examples in this very net:

1) The objections from soc.women to the creation of soc.men.

2) The taking over of the men-mailing list by feminists, and the
   knocking out of this mailing list as a support group for men.

3) The break into the mankind mailing list.  No feminist on the net
   had *anything* to say against publishing of private e-mails in
   soc.men and soc.women, from a faked account, but quite a few of
   them had a lot to say against what we said in private.
   
>I have known men in various men's
>groups and they have never complained of this being a problem.

Clueless.

>>> If the problems facing men are as great as they appear on this
>>> newsgroup, I would expect to find dozens of organizations formed by men
>>> to work on these many problems.  Anyone have any ideas on this?

There is the classic question of Joanna Russ': why feminism occurred
when it occurred and not before.  Try to answer this question and 
then take another look on your question.

>Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu

Hillel                                           gazit@cs.duke.edu

"...sometimes people can't cry about what's really eating the heart,
and need some other, safer, overt reason."  --  STella
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Subject: Re: Property, Patriarchy, and all that (was: women in engineering)
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 19:15:16 GMT

In article <SK73171.92Sep26104710@korppi.cs.tut.fi> sk73171@cs.tut.fi (Kiiskil{ Sami) writes:
>
>In article <1992Sep21.234626.17735@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>
>
>> 	If one can have power out in the open, then it becomes
>> unnecessary to pull strings. And one's power becomes much more
>> dignified and less demeaning.
>
>And what makes you think women will give up the part of power they
>don't need any more. If a woman can't ever have too much money it seems
>that she also can't ever have too much power.

It is difficult to bilocate...
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: Women as Victims (was:_Backlash_ ( Sort of ))
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 20:27:46 GMT

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

If you want to *do* something, help the balance of power (at least here
in North America) swing back away from the position that calls itself
"feminist," back in the direction of equality of REAL power for women
and men.

-- 
  
        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: zen@death.corp.sun.com (d)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Value of white het-boys lives
Date: 28 Sep 92 11:33:16
Organization: savage hackers
NNTP-Posting-Host: death.corp.sun.com
In-reply-to: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU's message of Mon, 28 Sep 92 14:34:59 GMT


In article <1992Sep28.143459.14143@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
> In article <22563@galaxy.ucr.edu> starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu (starbuck) writes:
>>I wonder what you have agianst "white het-boys", sounds like a rap group.
>>I have noted that some feminists on the net quite frequently like to bash
>>white het-boys".  Does bashing "white het-boys" have anyting to do with 
>>sexual orientation?
>I thought "white het-boy" was equivalent to the term feminazi,
>shorthand to express one's disgust and contempt for a certain mindset.
>I know many white hetero men who are never white het-boys.

  I was using it in the context of power in the US of A.  White
christian het-boys might have been more apropos.  Since the whites moved
in, that's been the case -- white, *apparently* heterosexual (regardless
if they were or not, they were, in effect, hets; no one declared
otherwise) men have been the ruling class here.  I certainly don't
equate it with feminazi; instead, it's a statement of fact -- these are
the people that make the rules.  The boy part, to me, at least, refers
to the "old-boy" network, and could perhaps be modified to "males" or
something less charged, even though that's what the men call it
themselves.  Feminazi and other labels (like "white bigots and pigs" or
something) are emotionally charged, and contain value or judgement
driven concepts.  I don't think too much of people in general; if women
had been in power all this time, I'm not sure that there would have been
much of a difference in history, in some very real sense.  I'd like to
see *people* in power, or no one having power over others at all.

  I don't bash men or white-het-boys because they are men -- I bash
people who abuse power or people.

 -- d
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: "Alt.feminism - why it should be shut down.  A sample post!"
Date: 28 Sep 92 23:17:34 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <MUFFY.92Sep28133555@remarque.berkeley.edu>, muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

>> You sound like a "spin doctor" in a political campaign.  I'm truly happy to
>> hear you say that you oppose censorship.

> You sound like a liar.

> I see that you have been working hard in your logic classes.  Is this
> the best you can come up with?  Surely, if I am so in favor of
> censorship, you can find some article where I actually advocated it,
> instead of just trying to use "guilt by association," especially such a
> ridiculous association as this.  I'm pretty sure that they would not
> want to be in the company of an internationally-known pervert like
> myself...*grin*.

You are right.  Next time I should just say "You sound like a liar". *grin*

>> 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.

> So, are you also this hostile to editors of newspapers, magazines, etc.
> Do you believe that they actually are in favor of censorship, regardless
> of how much they argue with anyone who tries it?

No, just to people who edit down my paragraphs and try to twist my words
into their own agendas!

> Or are you just completely close-minded on the subject of *feminists*
> who edit things, not editors and such in general?

Well, I don't think much of the feminists in "Men Against Rape and
Pornography".  I don't know how much they "edit". *laugh*

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
Newsgroups: alt.feminism