HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Feminism's Lesbian Leaders (was: Why are there only men on)
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 01:26:47 GMT

I'm curious about the "lesbian leadership" in feminism.  Have there
been any factual posts about well-known feminist leaders who are
lesbians?

(I've been away from my account for a few weeks and so I may have
missed some factual posts about feminist leaders who are lesbians.)

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Feminism's Lesbian Leaders (was: Why are there only men on)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 19:08:19 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.211247.20350@bnr.ca> grey@bnr.ca (Grey) writes:
>In article <1993Jan6.195235.23012@netcom.com>, sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan06.004608.22218@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>>>
>>>My point was that lesbians [women who have sexual relationships 
>>>exclusively with other women] do not necessarily lack experience
>>>in hetero relationships by observation or by participation.
>> 
>>True. And the very fact that they have abandoned the "het world" and
>>its lifestyle strongly suggests that they found it to be quite distasteful.
>>So their advice to other women is NOT going to be "useful advice on
>>how to live your life among men", but rather more like "how to shaft
>>those male scum, and live like us!"
>
>This is taking things a little too far. They're not lesbian to spite you.
>
>In any event, being hetero is certainly not a sufficient condition for
>being able to give useful about hetero relationships. I think it's difficult
>to argue it's a necessary condition either, since I make a rather good living
>giving second-hand advice to people.

Actually, since the topic dealy with the fitness of lesbians to give
advice to heterosexual women, the fitness of heterosexuals to to the
same is off topic (related, but still off). That is, the suitibility
of heterosexuals to give advice has no direct bearing upon the suitability
of lesbians to do the same.
 
>That sort of hyperbole is out of place if not out of the ordinary.

I quite agree. 
 
>Grey
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>grey@bnr.ca			              I think I know enough of hate
>greymouser			     	      To say that for destruction ice
>my own opinions, not those of my employer     Is also great, and would suffice
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Rich

payner@netcom.com
From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Breast Implant Info Needed
Date: 4 Jan 93 23:34:09 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

HELP!

I am a third year law student working on a seminar paper involving
purely elective cosmetic surgery, specifically as it applies to
devices implanted within the human body, and how strict liability should be
applied to the physicians who perform such procedures.

Yes, this is focusing on breast implants.

In Ohio, physicians, and other providers of professional services, are exempt 
by statute from strict liabilty, unlike other people who sell items. (If the 
jewler sold you a watch, strict liability woul apply if you were hurt by the
watch. If the doctor sells you implants, and puts 'em in you, he or she is not
held to strict liability.

While this may be a rational result for an experimental heart where someone
is going to die without it, I don't think the same protection should
be afforded people who are doing little more of a needed service than
yor local tatoo artist.

Please note, where the surgery and implants are to correct a situation caused
by injury or disease, or LEGITIMATE birth defect (small cups don't count), I
am arguing the law should remain the same.

However, what I need are hard citable statistics on breast implants, how many
such operations have been done, the reasons, the percentage of complications,
etc, etc...

PLEASE HELP!

If you have any information I might be able to use, please drop me a line.

Thanks,

Darrell M. Crosgrove
U. of Toledo College of Law

DCROSGR@UofT02.utoledo.edu


PS. My deadline is this Friday.
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Feminism's Lesbian Leaders (was: Why are there only men on)
Organization: LLNL
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 23:00:44 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.185322.14911@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.011853.13768@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
: 	It's just that a woman with a female SO doesn't have to deal
: with any man as intimately as a woman with a male SO does.

>Which statement STILL contains the implication, "het women spend more
>time around men than we do, THEREFORE they must hate them even more
>than us!" In other words, that being around men leads to hating them
>(an assumption which DOES underly much of contemporary feminism).
>It is utterly UNTHINKABLE that "het women, spending more time around
>men, will become rather fond of them"?

	Baloney.

	It may be an unfair generalization from the particular men
that the women in question may have to put up with, but that's how it
works out.

	So I think that a lot of men will have to learn to treat women
with respect, and not simply treat women as sex objects or pride
themselves on being one-man welfare agencies.

	It deeply annoys me that some men are heterosexual misogynists
(I've known quite a few in my life!); I seriously think that such men
are an embarrassment to the whole male sex.

: 	As a parting note, I think it significant that gay men don't
: get accused of misogyny very much -- the big objection to men being
: gay is apparently that gay men are not "real" men, and not that they
: supposedly hate women. I think that the best disproof of that thesis
: might come if one screams it in a gay bar; it would probably come in
: the form of a punch in the nose. :-):-)

>I doubt that gay men WOULD be accused of "misogny" much, they
>having already done to themselves what feminists hope to do
>to the rest of us! :)

	C'mon, buster. Gay men can show plenty of virility. Just look
at some Blueboy magazines some time :-) Or read soc.motss. There may
be fewer "big lugs" among them, but that's probably a side effect of
become aware of one's sexuality. I don't see why men have to be "big lugs".

>Two comments on your last sentence: First, I have spent my share of time
>hanging around "het bars" (if that's a meaningful term?), and I've yet
>to her ANYONE scream, "I hate women!", or anything even remotely like
>that. Second: I thought that gay men were supposed to promote  
>nonviolent behavior?

	I was just joking.

-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
From: starbuck@galaxy.ucr.edu (starbuck)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Date: 10 Jan 93 18:46:21 GMT
Organization: University of California, Riverside

In article <michael.726266706@glia> michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael) writes:

>Was that like a political aside? :)  It certainly had nothing to do with
>what I just said.  You had just said that we won't see her fighting for
>an equal draft, and then I pointed out that the unequal draft is an
>unfairness against men and that it is men who whould deal with it.
>    Michael Stanley (michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu)

Yes, a political aside.  

I wouldn't call a man only draft unfairness against men exactly.
There are feminists, women and men who would like to see a draft that would
include women.  There are also those that do not.  It is not just a men's
issue and I feel it is unfair to label it so.  I would say it is a political
issue not a gender issue.  I would think that feminists would want women
to be drafted and not barred from combat.  I am not sure women as a whole
would agree. 

To me I would leave the ball in the feminist court and let them have it
as their political issue.  I think that men would be wasting their time
with it since their are more important issues at stake, in particular
the issue of gaining custody of our children and the bias against men
in the divorce courts.  I am convinced these two issues should be 
central to the men's movement.  

starbuck
From: michael@neuron6.jpl.nasa.gov (Michael Rivero)
Subject: Re: Women DOCTORS
Organization: JPL Pasadena CA
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 03:44:22 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.005317.16991@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>In article <1993Jan11.001335.15622@news.unomaha.edu> webber@cwis.unomaha.edu (Joan Livingston-Webber) writes:
>>Have also had many of both.  had a nasty pelvic by a female dr. (1967) and
>>a male dr who didn't use stirrups at all (1992).  Still, looking for a new
>>dr. , I want a female.  It has to do with being tired of male physician
>>arrogance.
>
>
>	"Male physician arrogance"? 
>
>
>
>

  IN selecting a General Practitioner, I screened 24 doctors. I selected the
one with the best credentials. What gender is my doctor?

P.S. Have been with this person 4 6 years with no complaints.


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Omigod, he's BACK!  The Animator From HECK and his unchained PIXELS!   |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|                                                                         |
|  Thanks to some very generous support by folks whose names are          |
|  omitted to protect the insoucent, I once again have net access.        |
|                                                                         |
|    My sojourn at this email address will be brief as the Animation      |
|  Attic will soon take delivery of a UNIX workstations and will then     |
|  acquire it's own net-feed.                                             |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

-- 
Michael Rivero michael%neuron6@jpl-mil.jpl.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Subject: Re: Feminism's Lesbian Leaders (was: Why are there only men on)
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 18:33:41 GMT

In article <1993Jan2.032141.18000@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <168CBECFB.SURGDM@mizzou1.missouri.edu> Diane writes:
>>In article <1992Dec28.190731.12467@netcom.com>
>>sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>>     (re: Morgan, Ireland et al)
>> 
>>>And this gaggle of lesbians is presuming to instruct heterosexual,
>>>family-oriented women on how to deal with men!
>> 
>>*That's* what they're trying to do!? Ohmigod! Thank heavens that there are
>>still big strong manly men like you to save our precious childbearers
>>from the lesbian scourge! What would we little dust-fer-brains *ever* do
>>without you? (hint: I don't know, but I'd be willing to find out...)
>
>Actually Diane, I think it is a valid point. What basis do lesbians have
>for giving heterosexual women advice about men? I could see going to a
>lesbian friend for emotional support. But advice about how to work -with-
>a husband would not seem to be the expected advice.
>
>A Jewish Rabbi(?) was recently denied the priveledge of giving advice about
>sex and certain parts of marrige, as he was still a virgin. This makes sense
>to me. How can one advise about something one knows little about, or perhaps
>something which one finds distastefull or perhaps even hates? 

FWIW, I [hetero male] have received valuable advice from a lesbian in personal
relationships with women.

If nothing else, you have to admit that you're likely to get a different view-
point, which may have merit.
-- 
-- 
--
-- "TANSTAAFL"     Rich lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Muffy becomes anti-choice (was Re: just passing through...)
Date: 12 Jan 93 14:36:05
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: Will Steeves's message of Tue, 12 Jan 1993 04:09:00 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.115505.8352@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>holzman@d0gslb.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
>>In article <MUFFY.92Dec18125621@remarque.berkeley.edu>,
>>muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>> No, you have not "chosen to not reproduce" when you have sex using birth
>>> control.  You have simply chosen to take a "1/5/10/etc percent *chance*
>>> of reproducing" (the actual percentage depends on the type of birth
>>> control chosen and how well you use it).  If you gamble and lose, then
>>> you have to deal with the consequences.
>>>
>>>>And if the birth control fails, then it's certainly
>>>>a responsible decision to stick with your original choice.
>>>
>>> Exactly.  The choice of "taking a small chance of reproducing."

>>Gee, Muffy, does this mean that you're anti-abortion?  I hear this argument
>>VERBATIM out of people explaining to me why women should not be permitted to
>>have abortions.  After all, they chose to take the chance on getting pregnant.
>>They gambled and lost, now they have to deal with the consequences.


>Hahahahaha!!  (not directed at you, but at the situation in general)
>Oh, me oh my, I think that she was only talking about *men* there, Daniel.

>However, I can't see her being too willing to admit that in public...  :-)

*laugh*...and have I stopped beating my wife, eh?  No, Will, I was
talking about *both* men and women.  They *both* take a chance, they
*both* have to deal with the consquences.  The ways in which they are
*able* to do so are different, given the biological differences, but
that does not make either one any *less* responsible.

I'd really like to know *where* I say anything that even VAGUELY
resembles "this only applies to men"?  Or do you just ASSUME that any
feminist must only mean for responsibilities to apply to men?

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                      | ~Never had a lot of faith in human beings/
muffy@mica.berkeley.edu            |  but sometimes we manage to shine/like a
"amorous inclinations"? Aha! I'm   |  light on a hill beaming out to space/from
not "not straight," I'm *inclined*.|  somewhere hard to find~ - Bruce Cockburn
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Women DOCTORS
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 14:40:32 GMT

In article <oneil.726727956@cwis> oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil) writes:
>rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>>	"Male physician arrogance"? 
>
>Yes.  Male physician arrogance.  I still remember having a very painful
>gynecological exam.  It HURT.  And he insisted that it didn't.  Believe me,
>I know when it hurts.  I was a virgin and nervous and him yelling at me
>didn't make it any easier.


	You don't consider "Male physician arrogance" to be a pretty
	rediculous stereotype?  I sure do. 

	You had one bad experiance.  I've had *several* with female
	xray technicians.  Does this mean I should be "fed up with
	female xray technician stupidity"?


>I only have my pelvics done at a local women's clinic now.  They only
								^^^^^
>hire women to do the exams and the women who work there are extremely
  ^^^^^^^^


	Sounds like sexual discrimination to me.  I wonder how women
	would react if they head of a clinic for men that hired only
	men for urological jobs.


>>	Most doctors have learned that 99.9999% of their patients are
>>	completely ignorant of how the human body functions.  I've never
>>	noticed a difference between women or men in this aspect.
>
>Actually, I've found that I have had better treatment from female physician's
>assistants.  PA's for some reason seem to have better bedside manner than 
>doctors.


	The best doctors I've ever had were men, young men.  The best PA
	I ever had was a young man who had trained in the army.  But I would
	never make the gross generalization that men are _better_ because
	I've heard otherwise.


-- 
      Blaming "society" for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
 ---  boycott == coercion == censorship == closed mindedness == cowardice  ---
	      "Psalms 23:1  The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want."  
		Shepherds are for sheep.   -----      Pain teaches.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,talk.politics.misc
From: michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Feminism's Lesbian Leaders (was: Why are there only men on)
Date: 8 Jan 93 21:44:52 GMT
Organization: University of Washington
NNTP-Posting-Host: glia.biostr.washington.edu

In <1993Jan8.185322.14911@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>I doubt that gay men WOULD be accused of "misogny" much, they
>having already done to themselves what feminists hope to do
>to the rest of us! :)

Oh give me a break! :)

I'm not even going to respond to this one.  I think just bringing it back
for us all to read and laugh about again is enough of a reply. :)

>Two comments on your last sentence: First, I have spent my share of time
>hanging around "het bars" (if that's a meaningful term?), and I've yet
>to her ANYONE scream, "I hate women!", or anything even remotely like
>that. Second: I thought that gay men were supposed to promote  
>nonviolent behavior?

Who told you gay men were supposed to promote nonviolent behavior?

I have news for you guy.  Gay men are...  *men*.  They will act as
violent or as non-violent as other men act.  And what do you mean by
"are supposed to promote?"  Do you think all gay men are a member of
some kind of club who's major tenet is "Thou shall not commit violence?"

    Michael Stanley (michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Feminism's Lesbian Leaders
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 01:54:01 GMT

In article <C0JsLB.IuG@news.cso.uiuc.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
>...Not necessarily. I am a het woman, I don't hate men; however, I've
>known a few that did. And mostly these were women who had spent a
>good part of their lives assuming an artificial personality with
>men, for economic reasons.

My observations haven't been so much of hetero women hating men, but
of them viewing men as mostly obnoxious, childish, annoying creatures
who are more trouble than they're worth.  Many of the women I grew up
around (in a small town in the Southeast US) appeared to love "their
men," and yet alternately feared them (because of the actual or
potential violence) and humored them, all the while considering most
of their husbands' concerns and interests as childish and immature.

Some of the worst comments about men that I've heard were from
working-class women who viewed their husbands as overgrown children
who needed to be prodded, cajoled, and nagged to behave.  Women
complained that their husbands wouldn't bathe regularly, couldn't (or
wouldn't) clean, cook, or look after the kids, spent too much time and
money with their buddies, and generally were more trouble and pain
than anything else.  And yet these women appeared to love their
husbands and were reasonably affectionate and loving towards them.
The men made some negative comments about their wives, but generally
seemed to think more highly of their wives than their wives did of
them.

(I remember being about 16 and thinking that there was no way I wanted
a partner who viewed me as poorly as these women did their husbands.)

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Choosing Dangerous Relationships (was: How to Protect Women)
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: na 
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 19:46:46 GMT

In <C06rFH.FFz@news.cso.uiuc.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:

[debate between Lenore and Robert regarding the Givens/Tyson
'marriage' deleted]

>Which is more common -- women being turned on by evil, or by
>good? I don't know. I would just like to ask the (heterosexual)
>male readers of this newsgroup: Which kind of woman do
>you want to see in the morning when you wake up? Which kind
>do you want for the mother of your children?

The one I see every morning (lovliest sight in the world - to me), who
chose me, or accepted my proposal because she finds me to be good and
gentle, yet more of a man than those Macho men. Her words, not mine,
sorry for the immodesty. And I love her for all those same reasons,
that she is a good and gentle woman. Not that either of us are push-
overs.

Well, unfortunately its a little late in life, but we sure could have
had some great children. Just have to spoil the grandchildren when
they arrive.

I was going to e-mail this, but then some folks might have accused
you of skewing the numbers, that is if this is a survey.

>Lenore Levine

REB
From: baba@samadhi.Tymnet.COM (Duane Hentrich)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Boy, are we ever hearing a lot about "Consequences," a men-only concept
Date: 12 Jan 93 20:23:26 GMT
Organization: BT North America (Tymnet)

In article <MUFFY.93Jan3215420@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>I'd also go for the "consequences" being the *same* if there is an
>abortion - how about if men go through a couple hours of serious pain
>and pay out a couple hundred dollars for the privilege.

Sounds a bit too much like certain forms of prostitution.

Or were you talking about a wedding?

;^)

>And then a
>bunch of them can get serious infections, and some can even die.

Herpes is forever. Are fatal VDs serious enough punishment?

>Most
>of them can go through some emotional trauma too.  *Then* the
>consequences will "compare."

I take it you've never had to deal with a newly pregnant woman who
damn well doesn't WANT to be pregnant and blames YOU.

It's just the Luck of the Draw, Baby! (B.Raitt)

-- 
d'baba Duane M. Hentrich	baba@Tymnet.Com

We have yet to learn that the thing uttered in words is not therefore affirmed. It must affirm itself, or no forms of logic or of oath can give it evidence. 
The sentence must also contain its own apology for being spoken. - R.W.Emerson
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: grey@bnr.ca (Grey)
Subject: Re: Feminism's Lesbian Leaders (was: Why are there only men on)
Reply-To: grey@bnr.ca (Grey)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 21:12:47 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.195235.23012@netcom.com>, sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>In article <1993Jan06.004608.22218@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>>
>>My point was that lesbians [women who have sexual relationships 
>>exclusively with other women] do not necessarily lack experience
>>in hetero relationships by observation or by participation.
> 
>True. And the very fact that they have abandoned the "het world" and
>its lifestyle strongly suggests that they found it to be quite distasteful.
>So their advice to other women is NOT going to be "useful advice on
>how to live your life among men", but rather more like "how to shaft
>those male scum, and live like us!"

This is taking things a little too far. They're not lesbian to spite you.

In any event, being hetero is certainly not a sufficient condition for
being able to give useful about hetero relationships. I think it's difficult
to argue it's a necessary condition either, since I make a rather good living
giving second-hand advice to people.

That sort of hyperbole is out of place if not out of the ordinary.

Grey

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
grey@bnr.ca			              I think I know enough of hate
greymouser			     	      To say that for destruction ice
my own opinions, not those of my employer     Is also great, and would suffice
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women,soc.men