HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Why I Am a Feminist
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 16:03:49 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.213744.27000@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>In article <1992Nov6.053803.22887@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov6.000026.15585@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>In article <1992Nov5.163209.3920@netcom.com> 
>>>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>> 
>>>>I think a valid point that is usually missing in most feminist postings
>>>>is that most of the things men do most of the time are productive and/or
>>>>constructive.
>>>
>>>Okay, I'm with ya so far...
>>>
>>>>Men and women both have good points and bad points, strengths and
>>>>weaknesses. Reading posts here gives one the impression that the only
>>>>things men do deserving consideration is to rape, sexually harrass, have
>>>>sex with their children, etc... 
>>>
>>>Oh please.  You're tempting me to pull your post that says, "Who here has
>>>said this!  Give examples!  If things are as you paint, you should be
>>>able to point just about *any* post to prove your point!" or something
>>>like that.  (Then we could have 50,000 follow-ups where I go, "BUT IS
>>>THIS REPRESENTATIVE!!".)  But I think it's not a good idea to get Rich
>>>started.  :)
>>
>>Well, there are a few duplications, but there were 175 instances of the
>>word rape in the last 10 days. Here is a list, I can compress the posts
>>and mail them to you if you want.
>>
>>There is some duplication here, I need to write some filter scripts.
>>But this is just the last 10 days.
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>[175 lines with the word rape gone]
>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>While I don't want to read all 175 myself, will you concede that *some* of
>these could actually have contained the word rape

Are you implying that my 'grep' is broken? Every line contained the word
rape, and I will mail you the posts if you want to re-read all them all.

BTW, if you are too lazy to read them, you should not be posting about
the content. 

>, but been pro-male?

Where did this come from? Rape is not a pro-male topic, ever.

>There may well be more posts about how awful men are than there are about awful
>feminists are, but as far as I'm concerned, it's the posts and those who post
>them that are awful.

Those who post them is the alt.feminist readership. But then again, who would
doubt that we are all aweful?  :^}

>[This specifically includes those who post somebody else's text as a strawman.]

"[S]omebody else's text as a strawman."? How does that work?

>"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Child Support
Keywords: abortion
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 15:07:03 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.060917.25221@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.185031@cs.man.ac.uk> peterw@cs.man.ac.uk (Peter Wake) writes:
>>
>>How many feminists would support the change of abortion laws so that the father could request termination of pregnancy (regardless of wedlock)?
>
>*request*, yes. *force*, no.

...

>if married - 2 parents, joint household. 
>if not married - 1 parent, her.  (I'm open to suggestions here, 
>particularily from the men.)

The latter is a bit sexist, coming from a feminist for equality.

If not married, flip a coin (assuming both are fit).

Or, since nobody seems to like randomness in such an important
decision, do the following.  The man and the woman each choose
a number between 1 and 100 and put it in an envelope.  The envelopes
are opened by a judge.  Say the numbers are  a and b, where a-b is 
a smaller gap than b-a (mod 100).  Then the person who chose _a_  
gets the child.

This is remote enough to mask the randomness.  Legislators like
hocus-pocus like this.  It's like defining pi to be 22/7.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Secretly Wishing... (was: Feminist Jokes)
Date: 10 Nov 92 00:33:15 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Nov9.210011.7298@cis.ohio-state.edu> csmith@tortoise.cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith) writes:
>In article <1992Nov8.153054.14666@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
[text axe murdered]

>>In any case, no matter how much feminists desired
>>to be screwed like lightbulb sockets, there is
>>humor in the analogy only for those who have a good
>>deal of tension about the sexuality of feminists, 
>>or possibly their own sexuality.  One can easily
>>demonstrate this to oneself by substituting 
>>different subjects into the joke.
>
>It's WOMEN, and its not funny!
>

None of it has been funny. But I would like to point out another
anti-symmetry in these feminist arguments. (did i invent a new word?)
In another thread, it was pointed out that women who are self confident
could care less what the models look like, while those who are insecure
may well feel threatened. This was taken as an attack the victim post
by at least one person, and I suspect more to follow. In another thread
it was directly asserted that any male who feels threatened by feminism
is obviously not getting enough sex, because it could only be the result
of sexual frustration. None of the other feminists commented on this.

The point is that when a woman has a problem with something (anything
at all it seems) she is perceived as having a valid complaint, regardless
what, if anything has happened. But when a man has a problem with 
anything regarding women, -he- becomes at fault, and a direct, unsupported
attack upon his sexuality is accepted. This from the same group which
just recently discussed gender expectations. 

The humanist approach would be more like 'if a person has a problem with
something, it deserves attention'. The feminist approach has generally
been much more limited, and men are usually perceived as -the problem-,
not as people with different concerns and problems.

Some men -are- bad, and should not be out on the street. But not the vast
majority. Some women are in a similar condition, and should not be out
on the street either. But this judgement needs to be made on a person-to-
person basis, not on a sex-by-sex basis.


Rich

payner@netcom.com
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell)
Subject: A Nice Thought
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 17:41:01 GMT


Being somewhat uneducated in Unix I found myself unable to post existing
Unix files to the newsgroups, until muffy gave me some help.  This 
prompted me to look in the directory where I had newsfiles saved.  I
found some interesting things, among them this nice sentiment experessed
by a woman a while back in soc.women.  I think everyone here will
appreciate this:


Just a Dream?

I dreamt of a world where men and women were partners and friends.  Where
conflict and confrontation between them had been abandoned in favor of
cooperation and compassion.

I dreamt of a world were all people had realized that gender roles are
prisons others create for us, but anger is a prison we build for ourselves.

I dreamt of a world where women and men built on their similarities even
while they rejoiced in their differences.

I dreamt of a world were all had come to understand that the enemy of
women is not men and the enemy of men is not women.  Rather, they saw
that we have a common enemy in those who would teach us that hatred is
superior to understanding, and division is superior to unity.

I dreamt of a world where children were loved for and encouraged in
their talents and abilities regardless of how well they fulfilled
the roles adults might chose for them.  A world where boys and girls
were valued equally and taught to look forward to a life in which
they would chose their own destinies.

I dreamt of a world where men no longer felt threatened by women and women
no longer felt threatened by men.  



-Cindy Kandolf
 cindy@solan.unit.no
 Trondheim, Norway


Nice isnt it?  I think it applies to the "clodheads" on both sides of the
issues read here as well as the decent people trying to get along with each
other and life.

Steve R

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: liberal men are a hot item?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 17:56:17 GMT

In article <1dfr89INNpce@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz) writes:
>Here's a selection of refs I've found on the subject of mate selection.  
>
>No mention of hot liberal men anywhere :-{.
>

Indeed, the notion of a "hot liberal man" seems to be at least a
little self-contradictory. If a man is always oh-so-considerate of a
woman's feminist sensitivities (under which male sexual advances are
more or less criminal :)  ), it's difficult to see how he can possibly
be "hot". A man who is a "good liberal" in the contemporary sense will
always be on his guard against acting like a man (bluster and swagger
are definitely OUT), he will be eternally on his guard against the dangers of 
"date rape" and hence will wait for an engraved invitation before making, or
even hinting at, any sexual advances. This will make him, in a
woman's eyes, about as sexually interesting as Fido, her ever-faithful,
loyal, dependable dog. A quick perusal of Romance Novels, however,
reveals that the man who DOES tickle womens' fancy is invariably
one who is NOT Politically Correct.

We know that jock hunks, who most certainly are *not* known
for their liberal, Politically Correct views, are nonetheless HOT items
as potential mates. My own experience suggests that many P.C. women
actually EXPECT to find themselves with men more conservative than
they are, and this does not upset them enormously (just as traditional
women, who tend to be religious, nonetheless expect to find themselves
with a man less religious than they are). Of course, the most Politically
Correct group among males appears to be the gays, and there seems to be
reason to think that when a male becomes THAT Correct, his only hope
for finding "hot sex" would be with another man.

-- 
  
        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
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Subject: Polygamy
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 01:15:16 GMT

In article <T4SSB5HJ@cc.swarthmore.edu> auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.231338.4275@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>>In article <T4MSBCVJ@cc.swarthmore.edu> auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer) writes:
>DSA>I believe neither polygamy nor making demands from one's partner is
>DSA>emotionally healthy.  I can't understand polygamy and as to making demands, I
>RL>Do you have any specifics for why you think polygamy is emotionally unhealthy?
>RL>I think an open marriage could be very emotionally healthy.
>
>Outside of personal taste?
>
>Why not try and explain.  Here goes:
>
>One of the reasons one enters a relationship with someone is the desire to
>be with someone in complete commitment -- that certainty and strength which
>comes from entire devotion.

Ah, but that is only one of *your* reasons for entering in a marriage.  Others
may work out their own, and still have something that could only be called
marriage.  And, of course, the converse is true.  One may easily have a
complete commitment, monogamy and all that without a marriage license.

>There is a saying: Two's company; three's a crowd.  This is because in threes
>arguments often break down to two on one.  How can one acheive harmony and
>balance between three?  What happens when there are conflicting demands and
>needs?  Three is lopsided.  Four is worse.  More -- forget it.

I've often been in three-way friendship relationships complete with arguments.
We seldom had any two people agree with each other enough to pick on the third.
And when we did, you can be damn sure that it wouldn't work out the same way
the next time.  Harmony and balance may be harder with three, but couldn't the
happiness be greater?

>How can you feel that you are special -- uniquely appreciated as an individual
>if you have to share your partner?

Perhaps one could believe that love shared is love increased, not diminished.

>I guess it boils down to commitment at a certain level.  How can you be wholly
>devoted to someone if you are wholly devoted to someone else as well?

I don't know how it works, but I think I'm just as devoted to my father as my
mother.  And I don't see any particular reason why marriage relationships
should be different.
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Feminist Jokes
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 00:48:58 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.222110.24687@cs.uoregon.edu> tracer@majestix.cs.uoregon.edu (Roger M. Wilcox) writes:
>In article <1992Nov2.043610.1545@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>
>>Deal with it.
>
>HA!  Ha, I say!  HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!
>PTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's one way to deal with it.

Anyone care to guess, is this the post of a feminist, anti-feminist
or just someone from rec.humor who is pissed off, but not intelligent
enough to edit the followup line.


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 20:59:35 GMT

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

[on semi-nude calendars, etc.]

>>What I'm saying is that it may not be very meaningful to compare
>>a bikini calendar of women to a Chippendale's calendar of men.  
>
>Why or why not. 

This was outlined in a very long post which preceeded this one.

>>Maybe it would be *more* useful to compare a bikini calendar 
>>of women to a calendar of bachelor men which listed their 
>>incomes, assets, and number of credit cards.  
>
>Maybe it would be more useful to compare a bikini calender to a can 
>of motor oil, but I doubt it.

I doubt it too.  (Wow!  Agreement!)

>>*That's* what I mean when I say that sexism is a two-way street, but
>>it necessarily doesn't operate in the same way to the different people.
>
>Is that not what feminists here claim is the problem with society?

That it's sexist?  That it works in different way for different people?
Yep.  That's *exactly* what feminists think the problem is.
 
>>Indeed, the very existence of "sexism" implies that there are double-
>>standards.  
>
>So you defend the ones which might be to your advantage, even with
>similar to identical situations. 

No.  I don't defend double-standards.  I merely point out that they exist.

>>If the world was as full of Chippendale's calendars as it is full 
>>of calendars of scantily clad women, I think it'd be silly to conclude
>>that the sexism has now simply doubled.  
>
>Too bad, because it would indeed follow.

How so, Rich?  That men and women are *both* held up to standards of 
beauty in the same way?  How is that sexist?  It may be not nice,
but I fail to see how it is sexist.

rini
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: begley%lock.dnet@jesnic.jsc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: Was Clinton's victory America's message to the Anti-Choice?
Organization: Lockheed Engineering and Sciences
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 17:47:54 GMT

In article <92311.022651KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> Kurt Ludwick
<KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>You were watching a different election.  The issue of abortion was virtually
>-never- addressed, by either sides.  It was never mentioned in the vice-pre-
>sidential debates. And I never saw representatives of NOW or Planned Parent-
>hood of NAFTA out campaigning for Bill Clinton.  Nope, abortion was a very
>MINOR factor in this election.
>
>Kurt Ludwick
>------------
>
  It WAS a very minor point in the latter months of the candidates' 
campaigning, but I do not believe it was a MINOR issue in the voters'
selection process.  Pro-life people were definitely predisposed towards
Bush, and pro-choice predisposed against him.  The economy may have been
one of the major issues deciding people's votes, but issues like
abortion, who will appoint the last 3 remaining supreme court justices,
and "family values" stances slanted the field before the major issues
decided people's votes.  In the circle I run in, those that thought
Bush would not help the economy also were turned off by the Rep. convention
positions and the anti-abortion stance.  Those that thought Clinton/Perot
would wreck the economy also mimiced the Bush character issue.  
  What it seems to come down to is that most people have an ideological
leaning which subjectively biases their evaluation of the issues.  Kind
of liking or disliking the messenger based of the message's bent.  I know
few true independents who range across the typical Demo/Rep split on views.
  So I doubt a concensus is going to be formed here about which single
issue was the sole deciding factor.
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Child Support
Date: 11 Nov 1992 19:18:56 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu
Keywords: abortion

beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

>Can a man be trusted to make responsible and well-thought-out
>decisions about his ability (or desire) to raise or support children?

Why should a man be any less able to do so than a woman?

							--  Michal
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,rec.humor
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Secretly Wishing... (was:Feminist Jokes)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 16:42:42 GMT

In article <Bx80L6.AnC@nic.umass.edu> quilty@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Humberto Humbertoldi) writes:
>In article <1992Nov4.191744.18517@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>In article <Bx5wy1.GxE@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jchason@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Julie Chason) writes:
>..........[stuff about romance novels and women readership taken out]..........
>>>                               And even if all such novels were written by
>>>women, and a majority of women read these articles, then this does not mean
>>>that whatever is contained in these novels reflects the True and Natural 
>>>Contents of the minds of women.
>> 
>>No, of course not. But it is still a valid question to ask exactly what
>>it does mean. These novels must be fullfilling some need of the women
>>who read them.
>
>Yea, I suppose in some tautologous sense Payne's comment is probably
>true.  

A nice snobbish, condesending point.

>       There is probably SOME reason why women who buy romance novels
>buy them.  

As you pointed out, "in some tautologous sense", this is "probably true."

>                Still, there are a lot of different reasons why people
>expose themselves to various cultural products than to fulfill their
>"true inner nature" -- lots of folks, for example, watch films like
>T2, or anything by Clint Eastwood, where endless numbers of people are
>killed and mutilated.  

You completely missed the point that I did -not- claim that reading
these books was some expression of their "true inner nature". I did
point out that reading them must be fullfilling some need. Can you see
the difference?

>                       I myself have enjoyed similar films from time
>to time.  I don't think that one need necessarily say that the whole
>audience must have murderous urges which are expressed by the
>characters in these films.  

Good for you. There is a difference however, watching a film is a passive
experience, all the work has been done for you. Reading requires a more
active participation. Perhaps, just perhaps, this might be applied to
reading posts as well (wink-wink-nudge-nudge).

>                                 ** Maybe they just enjoy stories about
>these things! ** It just don't mean that what's portrayed is therefore
>what they really want for themselves.
 
But do you go to films about things you do not like? I suspect that
film choice says something about personality as well. Not in any absolute
sense, often one cannot tell what a film is about before seeing it. 

 
><************************** THIS MESSAGE WAS BROUGHT TO YOU BY: *************> 
><*                                Postmodern Enterprises                    *> 
><*   MAKERS OF CHAOS....                                                    *> 
><********** LOOK FOR IT IN A NEIGHBORHOOD NEAR YOU **************************> 


Rich

payner@netcom.com
From: zen@death.corp.sun.com (d)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: FEMINISM AND MODERN WOMEN
Date: 11 Nov 92 12:14:56
Organization: savage hackers
NNTP-Posting-Host: death.corp.sun.com
In-reply-to: pjz2@jaguar.uofs.edu's message of 11 Nov 92 17:34:22 GMT


In article <1992Nov11.123422.1@jaguar.uofs.edu> pjz2@jaguar.uofs.edu writes:
> TO ALL FEMINISTS,

  I'm one...

>   MY GRANDFATHER ONCE SAID THE ONLY THING A WOMEN IS GOOD FOR IS
> FUCKING...

  Well... it looks like the pair of you aren't even good for that.  At
least they can do *something* right, even by your (and your
grandfather's) admission.

> LETS GET SOME DOCUMENTATION AND CITE STUDIES AND
> PEROIDICALS TO SUPPORT YOUR POSITION.

  Oh -- right.  I can see it now:

_Conversations with my Grandfather_ (1991-1992.)  Max Man.

  Is that out in paperback yet?  Have an ISBN?  I'm sure it will be an
enthralling read, with gems like the one you quoted (perhaps it will be
titled "iron grandfather", instead?)

 -- d
Newsgroups: alt.feminism