HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell)
Subject: Self Evaluation
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 00:47:16 GMT

Article 2617 of alt.feminism:
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Self Appreciation (was: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Date: 11 Nov 92 14:56:01
In-reply-to: srp@cgl.ucsf.edu's message of 11 Nov 92 21:38:29 GMT


In article <srp.721517909@cgl.ucsf.edu> srp@cgl.ucsf.edu (Scott R. Presnell) writes:
> My
> point here is that there are hunkster men in lots of magazines too - I
> notice them - I look at them - and then I look at myself and there is a
> substantial difference - moreover I hear and see women make comments and
> cast glances indicating they soemtimes think about men in a corresponding
> fashion, and sure, I want to look like the hunks *some*...

> ...but I don't let it define who I am (or am not) and I don't go around
> telling people that they "cannot understand" what it's like not living up
> to a model's image.  Give me a break.

Muffy B replies:


I'm sure that that's true.  Of course, our society doesn't really stress
looks as being important for men, just for women.  


Steve Russell writes:

	Being a former fat child I agree.  A very fat man who is talented
	is a talented man who is very fat.  A very fat woman who is talented
	is just a fat woman ( substitute woman for pejorative of your-
	choice)


Muffy B continues:

For men, what is
important seems to be "masculinity."  How much of your (any man)
self-image do you think is rooted in how "male" you are?  Just think
about all the insults for men having to do with lack of "manliness."
Look at the threads here on sex, with the fears of penises being called
useless and the constant assertions that women really want "manly" men.
If you suddenly woke up as a woman, what do you think would happen to
your sense of self-worth?

Muffy
--

	I think I would be in shock for about 72 hours *smile*!  I think
	both men and women rap alot of self-esteem in their sexuality.
	Why not?  Their sex is a large (not all) part of who they are.
	I will give you that men seem to be more preoccupied with it
	and take threats to it harder.  However, women do get upset
	when part of thier sexuality is threatened.  Look what happens
	when someone has a hysterectomy, masectomy, or has sexual
	problems.  You get serious sould searching there as well.

Steve R








Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
~Weavers' fingers flying on the loom/patterns shift too fast to be
 discerned/all these years of thinking/ended up like this/in front
 of all this beauty/understanding nothing~ - Bruce Cockburn


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Subject: Re: Child Support
Date: 11 Nov 92 06:09:17 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Keywords: abortion

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.

>I assume practically none, what alternatives are favoured?

I would expand on "request". I would support requiring that the 
woman must notify the man within [some period of time] after becoming
pregnant that she is pregnant. Within [some period of time] after
both people know what's up, either an abortion will occur or 
they will file a "parenting plan" with the state. The parenting
plan will include custody arrangements (joint household, or separate
households with %|% time in each, $ contributions, etc, with provisos
for updates due to job changes, what if a joint household breaks up,
etc). If a parent gets married, the newbie can be added as a parent
(this would be the option of the parent who got married and the
person who they got married to). 

IE, if he doesn't want a kid at all and she does, the plan would be
1 parent (her). If they're married, likely joint household with everything
pooled. If he wants a kid and she doesn't and she is willing to go
through the pregnancy, the plan would be 1 parent (him). If neither 
wants a kid and she is willing to go through pregnancy (morally against
abortion) the child will be given up for adoption through x agency. Etc.

In view of the paperwork reduction act (US) it might be good to institute
assumptions - ie that if you don't file a parenting plan, it's assumed
X (like if you die intestate, your assets go X). Likely would be:

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

-jen
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:3689 rec.humor:32992
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Child Support
Keywords: abortion
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 18:32:24 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.222219.18930@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>maufd@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Mr J S Graley) writes:
>>mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>>>jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>    
>[Hypothetical legal system of Jen's deleted.]
>
>>>>  >What happens if they disagree -- ie., the default occurs?
>>> 
>>>>Should the man be forced to pay child support if he requested
>>>
>>>No, because in the default situtation Jen outlined (when no "parenting
>>>plan" is filed) the woman becomes the sole legal parent.
> 
>>Why?
>
>Because she has clearly expressed a desire to parent (that is, she
>carried a developing fetus for 9 months), while the father has
>not.  
>
>It is my impression from what I read in the net, that many men think
>it's a problem that they are automatically *given* responsibility 
>for a born child which they never expressed a desire to have.

This doesn't imply men don't want children.

It's also circular:  if a man had the opportunity to have the child 
and not just the bill, and if his choice made any legal difference,
he might be more inclined to want to have a child.


>So, in the absense of a legally expressed desire, it seems fine and
>well to assume that he has no desire to parent and accept the 
>responsibilities implied.

Only to an insensitive sexist.  You seem to feel qualified
to make uniform declarations about what all men and all women 
would choose under all circumstances.


>Remember, we're talking about a hypothetical system here.... one in
>which fathers are given a "choice"....  To have that "choice", they
>have to *express* it, in a legally binding format.

If you require this, then you would have to require that men
be *informed*, as well.  When?


>Why not make the man decide whether he wants to be a parent before
>the child is born, just as the woman does?  What's the problem with
>that?  She generally has about five months in which to decide
>(from detectable pregnancy to end of second tri-mester).

It's a confusing set of logics I hear -- now, it seems that
finishing a second trimester is an indication that a woman *wants*
to become a parent.  Wouldn't that also justify banning abortion
in the third trimester?

Your argument seems even to support banning abortion after
four months, say -- because a woman has had enough time to
think and to decide, and has even demonstrated a willingness
to continue despite the physical conditions.

I'm skeptical of your assumptions about the default desires 
of women as evidenced by continuing a pregnancy.


>  Why not
>have the man express his desire, in writing, during that same
>time frame?  Aren't you looking for a more equitable situation?

What is wrong with requiring the *same* of *both* of them?
Would she be too weak to file a plan herself?  

What is the compelling need for sexism, here?

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: Why I Am a Feminist
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 03:23:48 GMT

Rich Payne writes:

>You idiot, -rape- is not a value-neutral word. And if you want to see a
>word debate on much less offensive words, check out the thread rini
>started in sci.skeptic.

Ex-squeeze me?  This sure doesn't ring a bell with me.

Clue me in, eh?  I'd love to know.

rini
- gotta check those newsgroups lines everybody!!!
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: The Prejudice Against Men
Date: 5 Nov 92 23:45:11 GMT
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
 
>>Women often have to subordinate their careers to raising children.  
 
>What do you propose to do about this? Have the baby then send it off
>to some state institution?

How about sharing the childcare with a husband (or one or more other
adults in your family/community) so that parenting no longer requires 
subordination of mom's career? 

Just an idea...

rini
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu (Devjani Mishra)
Subject: Re: MacKinnon Suffers Snuff Harassment (was: Feminists, Radical and Otherwise)
Followup-To: alt.feminism,alt.folklore.urban
Organization: Yale University
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:25:53 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.010803.27326@netcom.com>, sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert
Sheaffer) wrote:
> 
> In article <misdeva-091192161955@morse-college-kstar-node.net.yale.edu> misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu (Devjani Mishra) writes:
> >> (Sheaffer):
> >> One *big* factor is that on the net, you GET criticism and, shall we say,
> >> "peer review" of a sort, whether you want it or not. Hence, in an
> >> unmoderated forum, it is impossible to maintain the unmaintainable, a
> >
> >Catherine MacKinnon travels under a variety of aliases and must change
> >hotel rooms several times a night as a result of the death threats she has
> >received, especially during her recent research into snuff.  It may not be
> >the sort of enlightened "peer review" we have here in alt.fem, but it seems
> >like unmoderated criticism to me.  Yet she "maintains the unmaintainable",
> >does she not?  Curious.
> 
> Indeed, she does maintain the unmaintainable, things like "all sex is
> rape" and the "victims of pornography compensation act," not to
> mention her assault on the First Amendment. But she's not on the net,
> and hence doesn't receive the kind of "peer review" we give each other,
> and probably wouldn't care even if she did.
> 
> But the *funniest* thing about this is her claim that such things as "snuff
> films" actually exist,
> 
> and MUCH funnier still is the claim that the nasty Snuff-makers are
> constantly threatening and harassing the learned Prof. Mackinnon, that
> scourge of patriarchs everywhere. Wonderful humor here: the
> woman who invented "sex harassment" is now claiming "snuff harassment"!!!!!
> 
>         Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
>   

I don't find death threats funny, on any level, regardless of what I may
think about the target's ideology.  But I can say that I think belittling
such threats is disgusting, even morally repellent.

       /-                   Devjani Mishra, Yale University
      /   /                 misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu
  ___/  _  _   _  ___       diva@minerva.cs.yale.edu    
 /  /   /   | /  /  /
/__/_  /_   |/  /__/_       "What's right is what's left when everything
                            else is wrong." - Robin Williams
From: 891666t@dragon.acadiau.ca (Trish Turliuk)
Subject: Ref to Handmaid's Tale (was Re: Honest Question -- No flames please
Organization: Acadia University
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 22:31:37 GMT

jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:

>In article <83312@ut-emx.uucp> tzeking@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (chan tze-king) writes:
>[...]
>if you wonder why I would find you frightening, read (or view) The
>Handmaid's Tale (a book by a Canadian writer which has been made into
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Being Canadian, I feel it necessary to interject: Canadian writer=
Margaret Atwood. Also, the book is far better than the movie.

>a movie, in the US it's on videotape). To me, The Handmaid's Tale
>was what my high school teachers promised me 1984 would be: a terrifying
>vision of what the future could be. 1984 didn't scare me much. The world of
>Handmaid's Tale reduces women solely to their biology, while still allowing men
>to be more - to be Human, to be People. 

Trish


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Child Support
Date: 12 Nov 92 20:06:00 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

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

>[Don: 
> Women are presumed to be able to make responsible reproductive decisions.]
>>>It is her power; it is her right; it is her responsibility.

>>[Michal:
>>In our society (as things currently stand) the woman has neither the 
>>right nor the responsibility.  A woman is prevented from making a
>>responsible, considered, unbiased decision regarding abortion.  And
>>the law is most unclear on the responsibility that will devolve upon
>>her if she decides to bear the child, as well as on the responsibility 
>>that will devolve upon the father. ] 

>In what state does a woman not have the right to an abortion?

>In what state is it impossible for a woman to obtain child support
>from a proven father?

>Where can a father avoid HR 5123, the "Child Support Economic Security
>Act of 1992"?

>Where does a mother have less than a 90% likelihood of success
>if she chooses to keep custody?  Where is it illegal for a mother
>to give her child up for adoption?

>Her rights and responsibilities, under the law and in our
>court systems, seem pretty clear to me.


>Don't tell me you have an acute case of Supreme-Court mania -- beyond the
>"one vote away" to "abortion is already illegal."

In what state can a woman seeking an abortion be guaranteed that she
won't be harrassed by Operation Rescue?

Where does the government guarantee that a woman won't be rejected
by her friends and family, won't be discriminated against by her 
religious community, won't be abused by her SO if her abortion
becomes known to them?

							--  Michal
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: _The Te of Piglet_ or Benjamin Hoff
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 01:44:39 GMT

In article <CINDY.92Nov3174648@meshugge.media.mit.edu> cindy@meshugge.media.mit.edu (Cindy Blank-Edelman) writes:
>
>My husband and I were both looking forward to reading the Te of
>Piglet, having very much enjoyed the Tao of Pooh (as you did).  We
>bought a copy, which I was enjoying until I got to the Eeyore Amazons
>section that you mention.  At that point, I became so frustrated and
>upset that I could not continue reading the book.  My husband reacted
>similarly.  
>
So what does the dude say that caused you to get so shook up? This
must REALLY be radical stuff, because I can't recall every reading
anything that caused me to react like that. What, pray tell, is his heresy?
I note that the reviewer in the San Jose Mercury News just generally "panned"
the book, without telling us what it says. So my interest has definitely
been piqued.

The guy must have been reading Paglia or something!  :)


-- 
  
        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: schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: The Prejudice Against Men
Date: 6 Nov 1992 07:43:37 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

In article <1992Nov6.045255.22400@midway.uchicago.edu>
mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>I've never seen him show an inclination to
>bash feminism.  Do you know something I don't?

Geez, why don't you two just tie me down, shine a light
in my face, and ask 'are you, or have you ever been,
an anti-feminist?'

I mean, are we talking crimes against humanity, or what?

-Stewart 'Igor' Schultz
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: Re: The Prejudice Against Men
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 18:24:59 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

garry@rice.edu (Garry C. King) writes:
| >There's an awful lot of young men
| >wandering around upset with their categorization as "nice guys" and hence
| >not suitable mating material (not until they have substantial $$$ or a
| >clearly high-status future, anyway).  

mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
| Setting aside the important and still relevant issue of "marrying up" 
| (income, status, age, height) for the moment, I just want to note that 
| the men who are in highest demand in the marriage market are those 
| with less macho and more egalitarian views, especially in regards to 
| female labor force participation, housework and child-rearing.  
| 
| On the other side, it is the "traditional" women who are the valued
| commodity on the other side of the marriage market.
| 
| References can be dug up on request.

I'd be interested in data on this subject, since I have very
little access to information directly.  I'd be interested in
information on all forms of mating, however, not just marriage.  
Also, I'm suspicious of what people say of themselves, as 
opposed to what they practice.  Qualities like "macho" seem
rather hard to quantify praxeologically, even though everyone
knows them when they see them; but what people say they want,
and what they actually go for, are two very different things.
-- 

 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
From: schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: liberal men are a hot item?
Date: 11 Nov 1992 20:56:21 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

In article <MUFFY.92Nov10105034@remarque.berkeley.edu>
muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

>However, I find them
>extremely hot...particularly the androgynous seriously-feminist types.

According to the literature, you're in a small minority.  The 
most attractive profile is closer to the traditionally 'masculine' than 
'androgynous,' both physically and psychologically.

Note that 'androgynous' is not synonymous with 'liberal' in the sense 
used here; i.e., a generally egalitarian approach to division of labor.  
But it's worth pointing out that women could have a significant 
preference for liberal men, all other things being equal, -and- at the 
same time show no net preference or even a negative preference for 
liberal men overall, if 'all other things' are sufficiently unequal.

The 'other things' here of course is the correlation (if any) between 
masculine personality variables and non-'liberal' attitudes, given that 
the former seems to occupy the priority position on the 
attractiveness meter.

Of course, down the line, the latter might come into play for the 
divorce, which is the 'smart women, foolish choices' effect.  :)

-S. Schultz
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Why I Am a Feminist
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 15:54:20 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.032348.23512@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>Rich Payne writes:
>
>>You idiot, -rape- is not a value-neutral word. And if you want to see a
>>word debate on much less offensive words, check out the thread rini
>>started in sci.skeptic.
>
>Ex-squeeze me?  This sure doesn't ring a bell with me.

They say the memory is the first thing to go... {humor mode on for the impaired}
 
>Clue me in, eh?  I'd love to know.

This was the post which started it...

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

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic,alt.censorship,alt.sex
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: A gender neutral pronoun, was Fundamentalist Nightmare
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1992 04:49:05 GMT

rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Robert Stephen Rodgers) writes:
>greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield) writes:

>>Seems to me that the English language could stand to use a new pronoun, 
>>that being one that isn't gender-specific.
 	
>Every now and then some idiot comes along and suggests something like
>the above.  Typically, these are people of the same caliber (that is,
>pathetic stature) that spell the word "women" as "womyn" as if it
>was some sort of impressive symbol.

Every now and then, someone comes along onto the net and calls folks
idiots for having harmless and well-intentioned ideas.  Typically, these
people of the same caliber (that is, pathetic stature) that believe
that languages are entirely static and should be protected from the
introduction of new words.

>What we need is for people to stop dreaming up stupid problems
>that don't exist.

Yes, you may be a good example.  (It's not really a problem if 
some speakers of a language want to introduce new words, is it?)

rini

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
>rini
>- gotta check those newsgroups lines everybody!!!

As the people in rec.humor will tell ya.

Curiously, alt.feminism is one of the few newsgroups -not- in the
newsgroups line. Where did you post from?


Rich

payner@netcom.com
From: teri@sdd.hp.com (Teri Tracey)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Date: 11 Nov 1992 11:18:57 -0800
Organization: Hell's Little Breakfast Nook
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: hp-sdd.sdd.hp.com

nissim@mary.fordham.edu (Leonard J. Nissim) writes:
>891666t@dragon.acadiau.ca (Trish Turliuk) writes...
>>Do you *REALLY* equate this necessary survival list with my desire for a
>>choice over what kind of images I am forced to see every day? I'll bet
>  
>Nobody ever put a gun to my head and said "Watch this or else!"  
>Every television set I've ever seen has an "off" switch.  As an adult, no 
>one can force you to watch

As a child, you have no choice over the messages you receive.  By the
time you are an adult and can realise what's going on, it's too late.

Teri Tracey              "When people are free to do as they like, they
 San Diego, CA            generally imitate each other."                   
  teri@sdd.hp.com  
=============================================================================
.
.
.
.
.
.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism