HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Please explain this quote
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 04:54:11 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.213837.13554@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>In article <1992Nov1.174836.12192@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct26.224830.20044@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>>carol@ee.uts.edu.au (Carol Gibson) writes:
>>>  
>>>>>Really - I think you'll find it was *far* more often the wife
>>>>>accomodating the husband than the other way around. To get some peace
>>>>>many women would just lie there and allow her body to be used by
>>>>>her husband, even though she wasn't in the mood at all. Allowing
>>>>>this use is made easier to her by a life of brainwashing from
>>>>>society about the role of wives. But how often would a tired husband,
>>>>>not at all interested in sex right now, consent to go down on his
>>>>>horny wife just to "see <her> reasonably well-satisfied sexually"?
>>> 
>>>>Proof by stereotype, how compelling. 
>>>
>>>It is hard to representative data for historical situations.  
>>              | (find)?
>>
>>Does not the "I think you will find it was *far* more often the wife
>>accomodating the husband" seem like a clear representative claim? But
>>I have had it claimed that a) women have the same sex drive as men,
>>and b) men more often want sex. The above seems more in line with (b).
>
>Not necessarily.  It could easily be that women and men wanted sex equally
>often; but that women were expected to perform when he wanted and she didn't,
>but not vice versa.
>There is not even a correlation between the two, much less cause and effect.

What?? There is no correlation between the occurances of men having sex
and the occurances of women having sex? Are you hypothesizing 100%
homesexual sex? I really do not understand this at all. 

As for cause and effect, is there not a common cause?

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

Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell)
Subject: Elle Macpherson Causes Rape
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 21:27:13 GMT

Article 2314 of alt.feminism:
Newsgroups: alt.supermodels,soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?



Rich Payne replies:

With you so far...

>Women are thinkingfeeling human beings who are psychologically hurt being 
>USED like a hunk of metal to sell a product.  

RASH generalization alert. (I like that one :^)

I am sure they cry all the way to the bank. No doubt Farrah Facwett (sp?)
has had to be institutionalized by now.

	I meant the consumers who are programmed to believe that if
	they dont look like these models they are less as people.
	I also meant the same consumers, who once being so programmed
	take extreme unhealthy measures in an attempt to achieve
	this look.

The alternative is that this is an ego trip which bolsters their self
confidence, and re-inforces their feeling of self-worth, and pays well.
Naaa...

	For the models who are naturally fit the bill, yes.  However
	most females dont.                 


    Women may be partially responsible for their mental
>health in this matter as suggested by the person who claimed it was all
>a self-esteem problem.  

Women are -victims-, get it straight, you are guilty of blaming the victim.

>                          Okay.  By the same line of reasoning I cant blaim
>someone who hurts me by punching me in my mouth.  

What an incredibly valid comparison, adevrtising and a punch in the mouth.
No wonder the women all have perfect teeth, dental reconstruction! :^)
	

	I think programming one to buy certain products and to strive
	for an unhealthy image is an injury.  I also think a punch
	in the mouth is an injury.  I tried to keep the comparison
	simple.  My fault.

>                                               Afterall, it is partially
>my responsibility for not blocking the blow and striking back.  If Im not
>in good enough shape to ward off attack I guess it is still my fault.

A short post, and he's babbling already. <sigh>

	Very mature reply:)

>I could have had let other things I value in my life go while I worked out
>to prepare for being attacked.  Why should I blame the person who struck
>me?  Enough of the sarcasm.  Do you see what Im saying.  

I have other problems with advertising, so I will not defend it. But I
think all the points you raised are not only incorrect, but that you have
been brainwashed. You have to read less propaganda. Read the romance novels,
that's the ticket!  :^)
 
	My points are from personal experience AND extensive reading.
	I think you need to be more informed about issues when you
	reply to opinions and I think you need to learn to do
	in a mature manner.  I think you will find more people
	will take you seriously.


Rich

Steve R






Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu (Devjani Mishra)
Subject: Re: Child Support
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: Yale University
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 22:54:48 GMT

In article <BxJ6or.HnC@cs.psu.edu>, beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
wrote:
> 
> In article <1djsrrINNreg@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
> >misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu (Devjani Mishra) writes:
> 
> >>> In the UK the government passed a law that makes father's liable to
> >>> support their children, regardless of wedlock....
> >>> consequence is that a man can now end up paying for a child that *he*
> >>> would rather have seen aborted.  The man has no say in a process that
> >>> he can end up paying for.
> 

It's all well and good to delete stuff in order to save bandwidth, but
please be careful about it.  I am not the author of the above lines.

       /-                   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
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: liberal men are a hot item
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 21:12:32 GMT

beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
 
>>Here are some comparisons to show that men are more likely than
>>women to favor traditional sex roles:
>
>Where are the statistics from?

Oops.  Sorry.  National Longitudinal Study of the High School Class of
1972, asked in 1979 when the respondents were about 25, or about marrying
age.  (I thought marrying age made the most sense...)  There are more 
than 22,000 respondents to this survey.  Yes, sex role attitudes have
changed some since 1979, but there was not a *lot* of liberalization
during the Reagan years, no.

These marginals do not diverge significantly from other national 
attitudinal surveys, such as the Study of American Families 
the National Longitudinal Survey of Family Growth, and the 
General Social Survey.  (The GSS is probably the most accessible
large scale social survey as far as the public in concerned,
if anybody out there wants to look up fun stuff themselves.)

It's fairly well established, as well, that women vote along
more liberal lines than men. 

>>A working mother can be as good a mother as a non-working mother.
>>
>>                      % men       % women
>>-----------------------------------------------
>>Agree                  55.3         68.1
>>Disagree               44.7         31.9
>
>
>Now, how do men and women feel about the following?
>
> A working father can be as good a parent as a non-working mother.

I don't know, but I bet most of both would disagree.  It's still a 
fairly "traditional" world....

rini

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu (Devjani Mishra)
Subject: Re: Appoved Bodies
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: Yale University
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 22:50:02 GMT

In article <carol.721445913@ee.uts.EDU.AU>, carol@ee.uts.edu.au (Carol
Gibson) wrote:
> 
> misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu (Devjani Mishra) writes:
> 
> >Actually, when body-type preference studies are conducted, by asking men
> >which female body types (using faceless outlines) they find most attractive
> >and asking women which female body types *they believe* men find most
> >attractive, women nearly always choose thinner, taller types than men do. 
> >I think that's even sadder.
> 
> Just like men often think women want more muscley types... Do you
> think that is sad too?
> 
> 	Carol

Yes, I do.

       /-                   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
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Subject: Re: Why I Am a Feminist
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 21:37:44 GMT

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, but been pro-male?
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.
[This specifically includes those who post somebody else's text as a strawman.]
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Incorrect Orgasms? (was: Please explain this quote)
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 22:13:14 GMT

In article <Bx9J2M.GEt@news.cso.uiuc.edu> parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu
() writes:

>It seems rather arrogant to presume that a man knows more--or even as *much*--
>about what women enjoy than a woman does.

As a heterosexual man, I believe that I know less about what any
particular heterosexual woman likes than she does.  I believe that I
may well know more about what heterosexual women (in general) like
than many heterosexual women, because I've had experience with more
heterosexual women than most heterosexual women have.

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Subject: Re: Honest Question -- No flames please
Date: 11 Nov 92 20:29:55 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <83312@ut-emx.uucp> tzeking@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (chan tze-king) writes:
[...]
>...women should feel nothing but obliged to fulfill 
>their reproductive responsibility to the species...
>...Along with this production go the 
>duties of feeding their offspring until they are self sufficient, and remaining
>at the home caring for the children until they are past beyond the age at
>which they can reproduce consistantly viable offspring....
[...]

ha ha hee hee hee ha ha HA HA hee hee hee hee HA HA HA *snort* >giggle< 
grin ha ha hee hee *snort* guffaw ha ha ha hee hee >giggle< laugh >giggle<
oh, gods...my cheeks hurt. hee hee. ha ha. hee hee hee ha ha >giggle< 
>giggle< grin...okay, jen, pull it together. now. ha ha ha....

if you meant to create a firestorm, you probably did.
if you meant to create laughter, you certainly did.
if you are serious: may you find a mate who shares your vision.
                    may the two of you live happily forever able to
                        carry it out.
                    may you never have the power to enforce your 
                        vision on others.

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
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. 

I don't know if Turing or Knuth or Hopper or da Vinci or Michaelanglo
or Shakespeare or Plato or Milton or L'Engle had children. I know some of
the work that they did, and it's had a lasting effect. Why should the
only work of humans be more humans? Why should the work of women be 
less than the work of humans?

>	Many Thanks for your time, and good wishes to your fertile future.

hee hee....

-jen


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu (Devjani Mishra)
Subject: Re: Child Support
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: Yale University
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 12:09:49 GMT

In article <1djsrrINNreg@gap.caltech.edu>, peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal
Leah Peri) wrote:
> 
> The point is *someone* has to pay to raise the children.  It either has
> to be the parents (how many single parents can afford to raise children
> without help from the other parent?)  or the taxpayers.
> 
> 							--  Michal

Too true.  I had a lot of trouble with the DeMoss Foundation commercials
("Life.  What a Beautiful Choice.") commercials that were shown on CNN this
summer.  For  many women, child rearing is not automatically
sunshine-filled and blue-ribboned and Catholic-schooled.  Someone has to
pay for it, all of it. 
 
If a woman wants to have a baby without the father's help, I believe
society needs to be equally - not more, not less - supportive of that
choice as of the choice to abort.  We need to stop demonizing "welfare
queens", and stop looking for quick fixes (forced abortion, Norplant,
sterilization - it happens).

Until we (people, parents, taxpayers, all) have done our best to ensure the
safe and healthy upbringing of children *already born*, I will have real
trouble with extending "protection"'s iron fist into the womb.   


       /-                   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
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts)
Subject: Re: The Prejudice Against Men
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 18:03:53 GMT

In <1992Nov5.034720.13410@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:

>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).  

>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.  

	But, he said mating, not marriage.  The perception is that the
market behaves differently.

Ken

P.S. I am definitely slipping;  conjunctions should not start sentences.

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu (Devjani Mishra)
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: Yale University
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 21:13:06 GMT

In article <BxGI8H.BMt@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu>,
mmstahl@cayley.uwaterloo.ca (michael m. stahl) wrote:
> 
>    Try reading "The Beauty Myth" by Naomi Campbell.  I do
> 
> michael m. stahl

This is not at all a flame, just a correction:  the author of TBM is Naomi
Wolf.  I believe Naomi Campbell is a supermodel.

       /-                   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
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Why I Am a Feminist
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 00:43:29 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.175505.20626@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>>>>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.
>  
>>>Well, if you think talking about rape, sexually harrassment and
>>>child abuse by default *implies* that's the only things men do, okay 
>>>you win.  I, for one, have not drawn the same conclusion.  
> 
>>Lets's turn that around, is rape a normal everyday topic, which, like
>>the weather, you would expect to come up in most conversations?
>
>No, rape is not an everyday topic.  But bringing it up certainly
>does not mean "I think men are slime."  
>
>I would agree that rape is topic relevant to feminism, so it is bound
>to turn up on this newsgroups more often than on, say, alt.chit.chat. 
>
>>Because it eventually gets brought up in a majority (I am pretty sure)
>>of topics here.
>
>Could be.  I know I've never really participated in a discussion of it
>before.  
>
>>I would also like to point out that feminists say that what men say, and
>>the way they say it, limits and devalue women. If this is true, does
>>not the same apply to the way feminists talk about men? 
>
>To my knowledge, no one has gotten away with saying/implying something 
>like "all men are rapists" on the net.

So you are saying that while using man when speaking of all mankind
devalues women, talking about rape as if it were usual, normal, and
almost the expected behavior does not in any way devalue men?

The point made, which is true for all things, or not true, is that
the way we describe things defines how we deal with them, and limits
our reactions to them.

Point in case, GF's invention in the term "prono imbalance" in reference
to the observation that men buy more porno than women. How can there be
an 'imbalance' unless there -is- a balance. That this has any meaning has
never been demonstrated. But I will delete all references to this term
in any further responses, as it incorrectly validates a situation which
has not been shown to exist, or even more desirable.
 
>rini


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: Re: Secretly Wishing... (was: Feminist Jokes)
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 13:05:52 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
| [ about feminist light-bulb jokes ]
| >> 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.
| [ Devjani asks who/what ]
| Well, Gorden Fitch has owned up to posting it, I had forgotted who. 
| If you want to call his posts flame bait, fine with me. 

Just for the sake of accuracy: I did not, to my recollection,
post anything that said that "any male who feels threatened
by feminism is obviously not getting enough sex...."  so I
could not own up to such a statement.  Like Devjani, I don't
know where you're getting this from; it's probably either
somebody else, or you're misreading something I said.  If 
you still have the text available, please send it to me by
email or post it.  
-- 

 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Child Support
Date: 8 Nov 1992 20:21:15 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu (Devjani Mishra) writes:

>> In the UK the government passed a law that makes father's liable to
>> support their children, regardless of wedlock....
>> consequence is that a man can now end up paying for a child that *he*
>> would rather have seen aborted.  The man has no say in a process that
>> he can end up paying for.
>> 
>> How many feminists would support the change of abortion laws so that the father could request termination of pregnancy (regardless of wedlock)?
>> I assume practically none, what alternatives are favoured?
>> --

>I think that if the father requests termination and the mother refuses, she
>has to be willing to support the child without the help of the father....
>But termination of pregnancy is a procedure invasive of
>bodily integrity, and I don't think an individual should be able to require
>another to undergo such a procedure.  Good Samaritan law supports this.

There is another way out.  We could allow fathers to petition to strangle 
the newborn infant -- that way he won't have to pay to raise the child, but
the mother's bodily integrity is preserved.  Of course, to be perfectly
fair, the mother should also have the right to strangle the infant.

< sarcasm off >

The point is *someone* has to pay to raise the children.  It either has
to be the parents (how many single parents can affort to raise children
without help from the other parent?)  or the taxpayers.

							--  Michal

>       /-                   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