HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: Female "Wiring"
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 14:08:01 GMT

Notice how Loren now feels compelled to reply to nearly everything I post,
and, it seems, practically *only* to that. Gosh, and I thought it was only
Brian Siano who had this obsession! Read a posting here by Petrich, 
and the first line is almost sure to be:

>In article <1992Oct9.231415.10416@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:


In article <1992Oct10.014855.22011@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>
>	First TV comedies, now the National Enquirer, now Sister
>Souljah.
>
>	Where will it all end?

Apparently discussions of the popular culture are somehow Unworthy of the
learned Petrich.
>
>	Perhaps with Scepticus Maximus becoming Scepticus Minimus.

Planting *this* idea is obviously Loren's primary goal. Gosh, my
influence and power must be *far* more than I thought, if I seem *this*
threatening to him.
 
>	I'm well aware of her views on white feminists, as on white
>people in general.
>
>	I don't find her terribly different from David Duke.
>

Nor do I, but that's not the point of the post, silly. Of course, she's
a racist. What's so funny is how when white feminists meet with a
well-known black radical woman, and the main thing on their mind is
apparently getting into bed with HER!!!

"Sistah's" exact words are:

     A lot of the white feminists I've met have been lesbians who
     seem more interested in getting you to adopt their sexual lifestyle
     than in getting you to empower yourself as a woman, so that you
     could empower your family. That's problematic.

     Q: Isn't that only one small part of the feminist movement?

     A: I said that is what I have experienced.

(Playboy, Oct., 1992, p. 68)

-- 
  
        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,soc.men
From: mwasson@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Michael Wasson)
Subject: Re: Choice for men: movin
Organization: University of Hawaii
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 01:11:04 GMT

>DB> The "excessively restrictive" portion of Pennsylvania's law was struck down:
>DB> the husband "notification" requirement that was, in essence, "permission."
>

>My understanding was that it was notification-only - *not* permission or even
>"permission in disguise".  Could you please clarify this for me?

Notification can *be* permision in disguise, especially in an abusive
relationship. Plus too "notification only" is itself an excessive
restriction --- an inalienable right should be inalienable -- but I'm
liable to get flamed for this ....

______________________________________________________________________
Mike Wasson  ---  U.Hawai'i, Manoa  --- Fat Messiah Games
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"It was one of those movies in which a computer takes over the world
and you jolly well wish it would -- anything's better than the people"
 							Joanna Russ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg)
Subject: Re: Women as Victims (was:_Backlash_ ( Sort of ))
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1992Oct2.034643.24329@panix.com> <1992Oct3.183342.26778@netcom.com>
	<1992Oct5.045719.14085@s1.gov>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 16:58:56 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.045719.14085@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
   In article <1992Oct3.183342.26778@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
   >   -End prosecutions for vague "harassment" that in fact are plain-out
   >    censorship of 'things feminists don't like' (or, alternately, give
   >    men the SAME power)

	   Like...

Like the hostile enviroment ruling that states that a centerfold on
the wall of an office is harrasment.  (e.g. censorships of something
that feminists (and- for that matter- me) don't like.
   >   -End the feminist assault on the first amendment.

	   Like...

Like the MacKinnon/Dworkin antipornography law.  Like proposed sexual
harrasment laws that say dirty jokes are illegal.  Like using an
anti-KKK law to prevent people from demonstrating on public sidewalks.

   >   -Either abolish "Womens' Studies," or else give "Mens' Studies" the
   >    same footing.

	   Why???
I can't defend this one.  Women's Studies programs are fine with me...


I see the point behind some of the sexual harrasment arguments, but
you can't deny that many of them are restrictions on speech.  If you
think the restrictions are justified, then defend them.  But don't try
saying that they're not.

-David "ZZYZX" Steinberg
**********************************************************************
*"There's a dog in the station  *"I can't believe I'm a junior and a *
* With a bad reputation         * film major, when all I really      *
* That's a sign of the nation's * wanted in this life was to marry a *
* Decay"                        * lobsterman and cook fish."         *
* -Phish                        * -a letter from Christie Searing    *
**********************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: nmurrayr@cc.curtin.edu.au
Subject: Re: Women as Victims (was: _Backlash_ ( Sort of ))
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 00:47:59 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.021155.26304@panix.com>, gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:

First, the background (sorry about the five-level quotes):

> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
> |> | For starters,
> |> |    -End preferences and quotas for women in hiring and promotions
> |> |    -End prosecutions for vague "harassment" that in fact are plain-out
> |> |     censorship of 'things feminists don't like' (or, alternately, give
> |> |     men the SAME power)
> |> |    -End the feminist assault on the first amendment.
> |> |    -Either abolish "Womens' Studies," or else give "Mens' Studies" the
> |> |     same footing.

> In regard your comments, let me give an example from Real
> Life (tm).  I am doing work for a large corporation; where I
> work, there are seven first-level managers and one second-
> level manager.  Two of the seven first-level managers are
> women.  The other five are men, as is the second-level.
> The women almost certainly got their jobs at least partly as
> a result of this corporation's being busted severely several
> years ago for never giving women managerial or engineering
> jobs.

 [...]

> Now, what does Robert want to do about this?  How is going
> to get rid of the women, which is what he seems to want to
> do?   If the corporation demotes or fires them because
> they're women, the other women in the company will make a
> lot of trouble, as will many of the men.

   There are two points to be made here. Firstly, unless something strange
happens to news postings between the U.S. and Australia, Robert said nothing
to indicate that he wants to "get rid of the women". He simply said that he
wanted to see an

   End (to) preferences and quotas for women in hiring and promotions

   Note the words "preferences" and "quotas". They're not just space-fillers
in the sentence. It appears to be that Robert is suggesting that women not get
preferential treatment.

   Secondly, don't you see the innate hypocrisy in your (implied) approval of:

> The women almost certainly got their jobs at least partly as
> a result of this corporation's being busted severely several
> years ago for never giving women managerial or engineering
> jobs.

   but your disapproval of what you THOUGHT Robert had said:

> Now, what does Robert want to do about this?  How is going
> to get rid of the women, which is what he seems to want to
> do?

   What's the basic difference between hiring them because they're women, and
firing them because they're women? IMHO, both actions are equally reprehensible
because they're based on selective treatment dependent on a person's gender.

 .....Ron

-- 
                                 ***
 Ron Murray
 Internet: nmurrayr@cc.curtin.edu.au
     Are we having fun yet?    -- Garfield
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:2441 soc.men:17615 alt.sex:32744
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Choice for men: moving beyond anti-feminism
Date: 12 Oct 92 11:48:23
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1992Oct10.060627.23366@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>
	<1992Oct12.170244.29642@colorado.edu>
	<1992Oct12.174549.5896@midway.uchicago.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu's message of Mon, 12 Oct 1992 17:45:49 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.174549.5896@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:
>>bena@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Ben Aveling) writes:

>(on diaphrams:)

>> You have to leave it in *after* sex for about 6 hours. Once it is inserted
>> you can begin intercourse right away. In fact its kind of nice since you dont
>> have to worry about disposing of the condom and getting another one if you
>> want to have seconds. 

>Let's see -- last I used a diaphram, I'm pretty sure that the instructions
>involved inserting more spermicide with each act of intercourse.  Am I
>wrong here?

Nope.  If you want it to be effective, you definitely need to insert
more spermicide.

>>  No less romantic than putting on a condom in my opinion.

>The part I hate is the continual 'oozing' the next day, as all that
>spermicide makes its way out....  Icky. :^P

Bleah...yeah.  I seem to be rather sensitive to it, too, so it itched
horribly.

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: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Subject: Re: At the Barricades (was: Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda)
Organization: QQQCLC
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 04:58:54 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.203705.24367@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Oct9.185028.18017@netcom.com> 
>Would you, Kenn, settle for the statement, "the women in Playboy are
>not representative of the variety of women in our culture/society/world"?  

	Sure.

>I, myself, would be willing to go one farther, myself, and say "the 
>women in Playboy are not representative of the variety of beautiful, 
>sexy women in our culture/society/world."

	Still with you.

>Of course all the women in Playboy do not look exactly alike.  (Then it
>would just be *one* women, no?)  But they do seem to conform to a
>fairly generic, vanilla standard of beauty.  At least, IMO.

	OK. And since you seem like a reasonable person, answer one for
me: so what? _I'm_ not upset that Playboy isn't custom-edited to my
libido; that would be a bit much to expect. Is that all that's bugging
Gordon? (I'd ask him myself, but I expect the answer would be hard to
relate to the question :-)

						Kayembee
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Subject: A fish w/out a bike ( was: Re: Double Standards for Insensitivity)
Date: 11 Oct 92 00:56:31 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <718690599@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>"A woman without a man is like a fish without bicycle."

I have never seen this as a slam on men.

I see this as challenging the assumption that people are only
valued when they are paired up in neat little boy-girl boy-girl
boy-girl rows, from here to eternity.

Do the men in this group see this as a slam? Is 

"A man without a woman is like a fish without a bicycle"

a slam on women?  

-jen
From: fedrick@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Kelvin W. Fedrick)
Subject: Re: Clinton Gore position on women
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 18:37:23 GMT

In article <1bl0v6INNhn5@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>fedrick@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Kelvin W. Fedrick) writes:
>
>>>Yep.  That's right.  He made that choice *before* the birth
>>>control failure when he decided to take his dick out of his 
>>>pants and stick it into a woman.
>
>>Using your dick is *not* equivalent to making a choice to have a child.
>>Got it!?
>
>No, I don't "got it".  Sex is a priviledge, not a right.

Boy, this is the most foolish thing I've ever heard any on say. A 'priviledge'
granted by whom? Our benevolent government? You? Look pal, so far as I know
in this country two consenting adults have a *right* to do whatever they want
to each other sexually speaking.

>>Furthermore you and your cohorts only apply this standard to the man. What
>>would happen if we applied it to the woman? Let's see. She made her decision
>>when she spread her legs 
>
>Almost....
>
>While abortion is *legal* a woman makes that decision when she allows the
>pregnancy to continue past the point when it can  no longer be legally
>terminated.  If abortion is *illegal* then a woman makes that decision 
>at the point when she agrees to sex.

You missed the point completely. Let me state it explicitly. A woman makes
her decision (to raise any child resulting from a preganancy by herself with
no financial support from the father) when she spread her legs and let herself
become impregnated by a man who has not promised to financially support any
child resulting from their activity. If she doesn't want to take the risk of
bearing this responsibility alone, she has two options. Have an abortion or
keep her zipper zipped!

-kelvin
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek)
Subject: Re: feminism is NOT hatred!!
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 01:16:47 GMT

carol@ee.uts.edu.au (Carol Gibson) writes:

>It's been said 10,000 times before, and after reading some posts
>today I feel the need to say it again - feminism is NOT about hatred
>of males! It is NOT about reducing the fundamental human rights of
>men and it is NOT about making women the "dominant" sex.

When will mainstream feminism take a strong stand on this?  When will an
extremist faction be denied access to women's centers (as "Feminists for
Life" have) because their goals are not compatible with those of mainstream
feminism?  When will _Ms._ run an article titled "Get a life, Andrea!"?

Xref: sparky alt.feminism:2667 soc.men:17830
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Double Standards for Insensitivity
Date: 12 Oct 92 20:34:44 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.123013.23330@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> bena@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Ben Aveling) writes:
>TJ Wood (tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu) wrote:
>: 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!
>
>Not sure.
>
>EG.
>
>Q: What is the technical term for the useless piece of flesh around the
>penis. ?
>

>A: The Male.

So that's why we have circumcision!    :-(

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Subject: Re: Clinton Gore position on women
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:13:14 GMT

In article <718918204@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.150249.27832@das.harvard.edu> 
>stewart@geophysics.harvard.edu writes:


>OK, we all heard all the stories how feminism is for equality,
>and Muffy even said that she is for choice for men, now we see 
>what happens in the political reality.
>
>Should feminism be judged by the nice talk of Muffy & Gordon, or
>by the political programs and laws that feminists push?

You are absolutely right to complain about the sexism of these laws, but
Do you *really* think these laws are stated the way the *majority* of feminists
want them?
I don't.
How many feminists do you know besides Muffy & Gordon (who talk nice) and the
vanguard radical big names in the news?
I can't claim to know a whole lot, but *most* of the ones I know would agree
with you.


>Tell me Gordon, if y'all don't ever think about zero sum games,
>then why do you behave like if you play one?

Tell me, Hillel, why do you attack Gordon for a law he probably would be just
as happy to have re-worded non-sexist as you?
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: MacKinnon, Playboy,...
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 09:31:36 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.170233.20385@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>Lot's of [printed, preached] ideas have 'driven' people to commit crimes.
>Anyone see the movie Rope, by Hitchcock?  Now that story is based on
>a real incident.  Basically, a professor challenges two students (in the
>movie -- dunno that much about the real version) with the idea that there 
>is nothing inherently wrong with murder.  The students accept the argument
>and commit a heinous murder of a random individual.  A terrible crime
>was the direct result of a professor's teachings.

The problem that I have with this analogy is one of numbers.  How many
young boys are killed by young men who read about supermen?  How many
women and men are raped?

If we believe some of the numbers (and I know many of the
"anti-feminists" don't) something like 1 in 4 women are sexually
assaulted by the time they're 18, and something like 1 in 7-8 men.

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?
From: schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: The "feminist agenda"? (Was: Women as Victims)
Date: 14 Oct 1992 21:01:26 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

In article <1992Oct14.165802.27866@panix.com>
gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:

>[ sigh ]  Feminism is not a boilerplated, monolithic ideology
>or political movement.  It is what St. Augustine called a
>community of affections.  That is, most people who would
>describe themselves as feminist would tend to be interested
>in similar things and have similar outlooks.   But there is
>no set dogma or creed or membership requirement or central
>authority.  I would think this would be obvious.

Yes, it is patently obvious.  But you have yet to answer my question.  
Why is this diversity 'confounding' -only- to anti-feminists?  Why is 
it not also confounding to pro-feminists?  (I use this term as a strict 
antonym to yours).

>If you look in this newsgroup (or others) at anti-
>feminist articles, you will find a consistent attempt to
>treat feminism as monolithic, as a method of attack.

Yes, and you will also find a consistent attempt to treat feminism as 
monolithic, as a method of defense.

>That
>way, marginal material can be used against the whole project,
                                    ^^^^^^^
>quoted out of context if necessary.  Just look around.

Or 'for'.

In my experience, neither pro nor anti-feminists explicitly
state that feminism is a monolith, because that would be
absurd.  Usually it's only implied, by the use of terms such as
'whole project.'

-S. Schultz
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,misc.misc
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Who speaks for feminism?
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 16:04:52 GMT
Followup-To: alt.feminism

Gordon Fitch writes:
> 
> [Bronis V. thinks anti-feminist a vague term]
> 
> When I use the term "anti-feminist" I refer to people who
> overtly and consciously attack feminism and feminists as
> such -- not just anybody who happens to hold views different
> from, or contrary to, those usually taken to be feminist.

This is much the way Rush Limbaugh uses the term 'feminazi'!
I think this parallel has been commented on before, in a different
newsgroup.

It's certainly easier to view the world in us/them, feminist/anti-feminist
terms, but it is ultimately a limited viewpoint which will often miss the
viewpoints of people who are less polarized (IMO).
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: At the Barricades (was: Re: Catharine MacKinnon,
Date: 11 Oct 92 00:11:53 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: The Piranha Club

I claimed that MacKinnon said that porno causes rape; Gordon asked to
see some proof for it.  I gave long quotes from the anti porno ordinance
that MacKinnon herself wrote.  Gordon has never even acknowledged that,
(even though other people had no problem understanding her claims...)

And now:

In article <1992Oct10.131414.27148@panix.com> gcf@panix.com 
(Gordon Fitch) writes:

>I haven't changed the subject: right along, it's been the
>demonization of MacKinnon by anti-feminists to attack all of
>feminism.  There is more than one aspect of this.  There has
>been the hiding of her real views beneath the simple-minded
>shibboleth "censorship."  

Well Gordon, is the legislation MacKinnon wrote hides her "real views"?

What is the name *you* (Gordon) use for such a legislation?

Leave the long "explanations" and give some straight answers.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: The "feminist agenda"? (Was: Women as Victims)
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 17:01:50 GMT

>lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>>sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
 
>>>   -End the feminist assault on the first amendment.
>>
>>	Like...
>Dworkin, MacKinnon, NOW, "Women Against Pornography," etc.

Are you sure about NOW?  I know for a fact that NOW's NY and CA chapters
have taken a definite position against the Pornography Victim's 
Compensation Act.

And since you mention Women Against Pornography, let me plug the
Feminist Anti-Censorship Taskforce (FACT) and the Ad Hoc Committee
of Feminists for Free Expression, just for balance.
 
rini

Did you notice, btw, that the committee that drafted the PVCA are all
men, mostly conservative republicans, and already on feminists' 
shitlists after the Anita Hill spectacle?  You'll have a damn hard
time convincing me that those jerks did it for the feminist vote....
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:2475 soc.men:17641
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: At the Barricades (was: Re: Catharine MacKinnon,
Date: 13 Oct 92 01:54:02 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: The Piranha Club

In article <1992Oct12.221249.20646@panix.com> 
gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:

>The part of the ordinance I saw simply stated that
>pornography caused rape and other forms of harm.  I would 
>like to see MacKinnon's reasoning, but I didn't see any.  

So learn to use a public library.

>If you were really interested in freedom of expression, you
>would use feminism to attack MacKinnon.  Instead, you use
>MacKinnon to attack feminism, which shows where your 
>priorities lie.

Gordon dear, do you want to discuss issues or to discuss people?